Anna a. Novokhatko - The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero_ Critical Edition With Introduction, Translation, And Commentary (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts)-Walter de Gruyter (2009)

Anna A.
Novokhatko
The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero
≥
Sozomena
Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts
Edited
on behalf of the Herculaneum Society
by
Alessandro Barchiesi, Robert Fowler,
Dirk Obbink and Nigel Wilson
Vol. 6
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Anna A. Novokhatko
The Invectives
of Sallust and Cicero
Critical Edition with Introduction,
Translation, and Commentary
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

앪
앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines
of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Invectiva in M. Tullium Ciceronem. English & Latin.

The invectives of Sallust and Cicero : critical edition with in-
troduction, translation, and commentary / Anna A. Novokhatko.
p. cm. ⫺ (Sozomena. Studies in the recovery of ancient texts ;
v. 6)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-3-11-021325-6 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Rome ⫺ History ⫺ Conspiracy of Catiline, 65⫺62 B.C.
2. Sallust, 86⫺34 B.C. ⫺ Authorship. 3. Cicero, Marcus Tul-
lius. ⫺ Authorship. 4. Invective. I. Novokhatko, Anna A.,
1978⫺ II. Responsio ad orationem C. Sallustii Crispi. English
& Latin III. Title.
PA6654.E5N68 2009
9371.05⫺dc22
2009005668
ISBN 978-3-11-021325-6
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet
at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
쑔 Copyright 2009 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin.
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this
book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in Germany
Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen.
Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Laufen.
V
To my parents, my constant support

VI
VII
Preface
The study is a revised and expanded version of my Ph.D. dissertation,

which was defended at Moscow Lomonossov University in December
2003. In the course of this work I have received much help and advice.
I would like to thank Hans-Christian Günther for his guidance during the
course of this project. I am grateful to Paul Gerhard Schmidt and the late
Josef Delz for their challenging and instructive comments. I am also in
debt to Mario Geymonat, to Nigel W ilson and to Dirk Obbink for their
intellectual as well as practical help.
In Russia Alexander Evgenjevich Kuznetsov , Dmitrij Evgenjevich
Afinogenov, and Michael Michaelovich Pozdnev have all been extremely
knowledgeable and supportive advisers throughout. My tremendous
gratitude is due to Andrej Vinogradov. Without his help this work could
not have been completed. I also thank Elton Barker for his comments and
kind support. I am grateful to Susan Reynolds who kindly allowed me to
use the manuscript archive of the late Leighton Durham Reynolds. My
warm and sincere thanks go further to the Faculty of Letters (and es-
pecially to the Department of Classical Philology) of the Moscow Lo-
monossov University where I studied, and to the Institute of Classics at
the Albert-Ludwigs-University in Freiburg im Breisgau, and its director
Bernhard Zimmermann, where this book was written. I cannot thank
John Carras enough for his outstanding patience correcting the English
version of my manuscript, in addition to the invaluable guidance he pro-
vided along the way . Finally, I thank my sister Catherine, my loveliest
friend and warmest supporter.
This book was written with the financial support of the German Aca-
demic Exchange Service (DAAD).
Freiburg im Breisgau, October 2008 Anna Novokhatko

VIII
Contents IX
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 1 What are the invectives against Cicero and

against Sallust? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Rhetoric as a central part of Roman education . . . . . . . 4
1.1.1 Declamatio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.2 Suasoria and Controversia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.3 The Schools of Rhetoric in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.1.4 The importance of imitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2 Generic features of invective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3 The invectives of Sallust as a part of the rhetorical tradition 15
1.4 The historical context of the invectives . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.5 The content of the invectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.5.1 The content of the invective against Cicero . . . . . . . . 18
1.5.2 The content of the invective against Sallust . . . . . . . . 21
Chapter 2 The history of the text known

as Sallust’s invectives based on collated medieval manuscripts
(10th – early 14th centuries) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.1 Archetype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.2 Families and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2.1 Family (AFK+N, T GBX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2.2 Family (CD+I, S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM) . . . . . 38
2.3 Hyparchetypes of the family (AFK+N, T GBX) . . . . . 40
2.3.1 Hyparchetype (AFK+N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3.2 Hyparchetype (T GBX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.4 Hyparchetypes of the family
(CD+I, S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM) . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.4.1 Hyparchetype (CD+I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.4.2 Hyparchetype (S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM) . . . . . . 64
X Contents
Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited

invectives (incunabula and 16th–20th centuries) . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.1 Authorship of the invectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.1.1 Authorship of the invectives in antiquity . . . . . . . . . 111
3.1.2 Question of the authorship of the invectives in the
15th and 16th centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.1.3 Polemics on the authorship of the invectives in the
17th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
18th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
19th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.1.6 Henrich Jordan and further polemics on the authorship
of the invectives from 1876 up until today . . . . . . . . . 123
3.2 The history of edited invectives
(incunabula and 16th–20th centuries) . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
3.2.1 Textual transmission of the invectives in incunabula . . . 129
3.2.2 Textual transmission of the invectives in the 16th century . 132
3.2.6 Henrich Jordan and new editions of the invectives
from 1876 up until today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Chapter 4 Text known as Sallust’s invectives with a new

apparatus criticus, a translation, and a commentary . . . . . . . . 150
Appendix. List of edited invectives

(incunabula and 16th–20th centuries) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Index rerum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Index nominum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Index vocabulorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Abbreviations XI
Abbreviations
Cic. In M. Tullium Ciceronem Oratio

Sall. In C. Sallustium Crispum Oratio
In this book the following abbreviations for collated editions are used:
Ald secondary references toAldinae in other editions, e.g.:Ald in

marg.
Ald1 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae. Eiusdem de
Bello Iugurthino. Eiusdem oratio contra M. T . Ciceronem.
M. T. Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium… Quae
omnia solerti nuper cura repurgata sunt, ac quo quaeque or-
dine optime digesta. V enetiis in Aedibus Aldi, et Andreae
Asulani soceri [1522].
Ald 2 C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthi-
num … Fragmenta Historiarum C. Sallustii Crispi … ab
Aldo Manutio, Pauli F. collecta … Antverpiae, 1564.
Bas C. Crispi Salustii et Latinorum historicorum praestantissimi
Opera, quae quidem exstant, omnia. Basileae, per Henricum
Petri, 1564.
Cortius Caii Crispi Sallustii quae exstant item Epistolae de Repub-
lica ordinanda, declamatio in Ciceronem et Pseudociceronis
in Sallustium … recensuit diligentissime et adnotationibus
illustravit Gottlieb Cortius. Lipsiae [1724].
Crisp C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. In usum serenissimi Gallia-
rum Crispini, diligenter recensuit, notulas addidit Daniel
Crispinus. Parisiis, apud Fredericum Leonard Typographum
Regis, Serenissimi Delphini, et Cleri Gallicani. MDCLXXIV.
Cum privilegio Regis [1674].
Ernout Pseudo-Sallust. Lettres à César , Invectives. T exte établie,
traduit et commenté par A. Ernout. Paris, Société d’ Édition
“Les Belles Lettres”, 1962
Grut C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant ex recognitione
Iani Gruteri accedunt. Francofurti. E Collegio Paltheniano,
Sumptibus Ionae Rhodii MDCVII. [1607]
XII Abbreviations
Inc omnium incunabulorum consensus

Jordan C. Sallustii Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha, Historiarum reliquiae
potiores incerti rhetoris suasoriae ad Caesarem senem de Re
Publica Henricus Jordan iterum recognovit, accedunt incerti
rhetoris invectivae Tullii et Sallustii personis tributae. Bero-
lini apud Weidmannos MDCCCLXXVI. [1876]
Kurfess Sallusti in Ciceronem et Invicem Invectivae. Recensuit Al-
phonsus Kurfess. Lipsiae in aedibus B. G. T eubneri
MCMXIV [11914], 51970.
Lugd C. Crispi Sallustii de L. Ser gii Catilinae coniuratione, ac
Bello Iugurthino historiae; eiusdem in M. T . Ciceronem M.
T. Cic. in Sallustium Recriminatio … Apud Seb. Gryphium,
Lugduni, 1551.
Reynolds C. Sallusti Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha, Historiarum Fragmenta
Selecta, Appendix Sallustiana. Recognovit breviore adnota-
tione critica instruxit L. D. Reynolds, collegii Aenei Nasi
apud Oxonienses Socius. Oxonii e T ypographeo Clarendo-
niano, 1991.
Rom C. Crispi Sallustii Opera Quae exstant. Superiorum per-
missu. Romae. Ex of ficina Sforziniana, et Pippia MDCIX.
Apud Iacobum Mascardum [1609].
SB Cicero. Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Letter Fragments.
Letter to Octavian. Invectives. Handbook of Electioneering.
Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey . Harvard,
2002.
TT Texts and Transmission. A survey of Latin Classics, by L. D.
Reynolds. Oxford, 1983.
Ven C. Salustii Crispi de coniuratione Catilinae, et de bello Iu-
gurthino Historiae. In M. Tullium Ciceronem oratio, M. Tul-
lii Ciceronis ad Salustium responsio… Venetiis, Apud Ioan-
nem Mariam Bonellum M.D.LV. [1555].
1
Introduction
“For the most part affairs of state evolve through private quarrels, where
no citizen can conceal what kind of man he is”. 1 The comment comes
from ‘Cicero’ s’ invective against ‘Sallust’, part of his rebuttal of the
latter’s accusations. Rhetoric both was and remains important, helping
individuals get ahead, while at the same time constituting the public dis-
course that in turn moulds society.
This work covers the history of the text of the invectives of ‘Sallust’
against ‘Cicero’ and of ‘Cicero’ against ‘Sallust’. The text itself with an
appatarus criticus and also a translation resulting from the study of the
history of the text can be found in chapter 4 from page 150 to page 189.
Six previously unused manuscripts have been consulted for this edition
in order to add to the edition made by L. D. Reynolds in 1991. Previously
used manuscripts have also been re-examined, as have those manuscripts
which have not up till now been incorporated into editions of the text,
though they have been referred to elsewhere. The second chapter of the
work, the original scope of this study, presents the manuscript tradition of
the text and also the history of the changes which arose during its trans-
mission.
The history of the printed text and, closely linked to it, the history of
the attribution of authorship is considered in the third chapter. The ques-
tion of the authenticity of both invectives has long troubled scholars,
commencing with Quintilian’s quotation from the text as though it were
authentic, through the considerations of a number of humanist commen-
tators. This dispute continues in our own time.
This first chapter is not intended as an original work of scholarship but
serves as an introduction and includes general background information
on invective and the rhetorical schools of Rome, with particular attention
to the invectives of pseudo-Sallust and pseudo-Cicero as a product of
these schools. Students at such schools might have been set the task of
writing a speech against Cicero imitating Sallust, or indeed of responding
to Sallust in the style of Cicero.
1 Sall. 3. See below p. 22, 167.

2 Introduction
“Will you burden our ears with your hatred; will you harass us with
revolting words?” cries a Sallust. 2 Through the invectives, the dispute
between these two orators has been transferred down to us in a multitude
of forms, quite possibly without Cicero or Sallust being in the least aware
of the literary creations let alone commentaries they have engendered.
Even if not directly attributed to Cicero and Sallust, these “revolting
words” shed valuable light on rhetorical training and practice in the
ancient Roman world.
2 Cic. 6. See below p. 159.

3
Chapter 1
What are the invectives against
Cicero and against Sallust?
The role of rhetoric in the education of students in the ancient world had
been widely discussed at that time, and has also proved a topic of con-
siderable interest in more recent scholarship. Though this work will not
concentrate on the subject of the role of rhetoric in ancient education, it is
important to point to a number of the features of the ancient system of
education that permitted the creation and attribution of speeches such as
these invectives. It is for this reason that the following pages provide a
brief resume of rhetorical education and in particular of the rhetorical
schools of ancient Rome, based as they were on the earlier example of the
ancient Greek world.3
Students at these rhetorical schools were given the task of composing
speeches or declamations in the voice of another – in most cases widely
known – figure, Cicero and Sallust being obvious examples. 4 Imitation
was seen in a very different light in ancient as opposed to modern litera-
ture. Thus, in the ancient world, imitation of a literary model’s style was
widely praised. Students would learn to imitate these models, imitation
providing a sound training for their future careers.
Ever since antiquity , the invective against Sallust was commonly
regarded as non-Ciceronian, a rhetorical exercise, the product of the
environment described above.5 The invective against Cicero on the other
hand has produced a furious discussion spanning centuries as will be dis-
cussed in the third chapter of this work.6 Without delving deeper into the
question of authenticity at this point, it should be noted that most pres-
ent-day scholars do not regard the invective to be Sallustian, but rather a
typical example of the type of rhetorical exercise in which the Roman
educational system excelled.
3 Morgan 1998, 195 ar gues that the content of education in Greece and Rome
did not differ significantly.
4 See Kaster 1998, 248 ff.; Winterbottom 1982, 239 ff.
5 See further on the subject ch. 3, p. 112 ff.
6 See further ch. 3, p. 111–129.
4 Chapter 1 What are the invectives against Cicero and against Sallust?
1.1 Rhetoric as a central part of Roman education
1.1.1 Declamatio
Rhetoric came to Rome from the Greek world. Following on from Alex-
ander’s conquests at the end of the 4 th century BC, Greek culture spread
throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. Greek became the lingua franca
of trade, politics and scholarship. Schools of rhetoric sprouted up with
the remarkable regularity of ancient theatres, wherever Greek inf luence
established itself. As the standard form of further education these rhe-
torical schools trained orators and writers; indeed, their inf luence was
witnessed precisely in such theatres, in Greek and also particularly in
Roman literature.7
There were forms of practical rhetorical training in Rome even
before the extensive influence of Greek rhetorical theory there. 8 How-
ever already by the time of the death of Cato the Elder in 149BC, with
Greek rhetoric laying down roots in Rome, conservatives felt the threat
of this potentially revolutionary tool that could weaken aristocratic
control over the organs of state. Thus there was a conservative backlash
against rhetorical theory and also against those teachers who brought
it to Rome from the Greek world. Partly as a result of these negative
sentiments the main teachers of rhetoric in Rome remained Greeks
for quite some time. Even though the first Roman who broke the trend
was Lucius Plotius Gallus, 9 who was active when Cicero was young,
the profession would seem to have acquired an air of respectability only
later.10
Cicero and Quintilian were the two Latin authors whose judgment of
the place of rhetoric in education had the greatest influence in the Roman
world. Cicero’s De oratore includes a section on the education of the
orator. With Cicero being a major source for Quintilian’ s work, it is not
surprising that the Institutio deals extensively with the issue of edu-
cation, adding a description of the polished orator, end-product of a well-
rounded rhetorical training. Quintilian proposed that the student study
philosophy, music, even astronomy, and also emphasised the need for ex-
7 See Kennedy 1994, 81 ff.; Corbeill 2007, 70.

8 See Sussman 1978, 4.
9 In ca. 92 BC. Cf. Cic. Fragm epist. 1, 1; Quint. 2, 4, 42; Sen. Contr. 2, praef. 5;
Suet. De gram. et rhet. 26, 1–2. See also Sussman 1978, 4.
10 Cf. Quint. 2, 4, 42; Sen. Contr. 2, praef. 5; Suet. De gram. et rhet. 26, 2.
1.1 Rhetoric as a central part of Roman education 5
tensive reading. 11 The focal point of his educational ideas was however
rhetoric.12
The most important task in the classroom was to deliver a declama-
tory speech. Students acquired practical experience by declaiming in the
classroom and this trained them for speaking in public. This exercise was
called , or declamatio. The instructor selected a topic, discussed
different ways of approaching it and then declaimed a model speech. 13
The use of the termdeclamatio to describe rhetorical exercises seems
to have been first applied to a type of vocal exercise, the word making its
initial appearance in the Rhetorica ad Herennium, in other words in the
early 80s BC, in exactly such a context.14 The term ‘declamare’ as it first
appeared in Cicero’s Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino (80 BC), signified a rhe-
torical exercise stressing delivery.15 Declamare and declamatio at the be-
ginning were not used to describe school exercises, but rather described
an ineffective style of speech in contrast to the more eloquent orating
(orare).16 In Cicero’ s time all the topics for declamatory practice were
either taken from real historical events or were adapted from real legal
situations or on occasion referred to daily life; by the time of the Empire
the themes had become much less real; however, they still helped the stu-
dent to prepare for a career in court. 17 The teaching of rhetoric in Rome
was given further impetus by imperial regulations that granted rhetorical
schools various privileges.18
11 Quint. 1, 4, 1–5; 1, 8, 12; 10, 1 ff.; 12, 2, 11.

12 Cf. Mart. Cap. De nupt. Phil. et Merc. 5, 426–427. See Morgan 1998, 195–197.
13 See the study of the word declamatio in G. François 1963, 513ff. See also Stroh
2003, 5 ff.; Winterbottom 1996, 436 f.
14 Cf. Her. 3, 20. See Sussman 1978, 5.
15 Cf. Cic. Rosc. Amer. 82.
16 Cf. Cic. Planc. 83. See Corbeill 2007, 72; Fairweather 1981, 127 ff.
17 Parks 1945, 62. See also Speyer 1971, 135.
18 For examples of Roman declamation see Sen. Orat. et r het. sent., divis., col .,
Ps.-Quint. Declam. (14 maiores and 145 minores) and Calp. Flacci 51 excerptae
decem rhetorum minorum. Cf. Corbeill 2007, 71; Parks 1945, 67–68. On the his-
tory of declamation see Fairweather 1981, 104–131; Gunderson 2003, 29 ff.;
Bloomer 1997, 110 ff.
1.1.2 Suasoria and Controversia
The subject matter chosen by the teacher for declamatory exercises was
known either as suasoriae, these being declamatory exercises on an im-
aginary deliberative theme, or as controversiae, these being declamatory
exercises on an imaginary legal theme. The suasoriae were practiced in
school before the controversiae, as they were considered the easier of the
two forms.19 The invectives against Cicero and against Sallust belong to
the second type, the controversiae, which means that they were declama-
tions in imitation of speeches in the Senate.
The roots of the controversia are usually traced back to Aeschines,
who founded a school of rhetoric on Rhodes in 330BC and seems to have
assigned the practice of judicial speeches to his students. 20 Quintilian
transmits the standard view of his time in claiming that controversiae
were first introduced into schools at the time of Demetrius of Phalerum
(c. 350–280 BC).21
As G. A. Kennedy 22 shows, the rhetorical exercises could take the
form of prosopopoeia.23 In the prosopopoeia the speaker impersonated
a specific individual and either provided some form of advice to another
individual or engaged in a debate with himself in order to determine the
required action for any given situation. The prosopopoeia frequently ad-
dressed a given individual in the second person. Orators often neglected
argumentation and relied on ethos, pathos and hyperbole in the place of
logic and proof. This definition suits the invectives studied here. Both the
invective against Cicero and that against Sallust represent examples of
prosopopoeiae.
Though there were many standard controversiae, the speaker aiming
for a fresh approach to traditional themes, new subjects were also con-
stantly being invented, many involving sex and violence. 24 One expla-
nation for such subject matter was the desire to augment adolescent boys’
interest in their studies and also no doubt to entertain audience, though
it is important not to impose our conceptions of proper behaviour on
the rhetors we are trying to understand. According to Suetonius, these
19 Cf. Tac. Dial. 35, 4. See also Sussman 1978, 11.

20 See Sussman 1978, 2.
21 Quint. 2, 4, 41–42.
22 Kennedy 1994, 166 ff.
23 Cf. Demetr. Eloc. 265, 266.
24 Cf. Cic. 2; 2; Sall. 9; 13–15; 15–16. See Imber 2001, 201f.; Corbeill 2007, 75ff.
original controversiae were drawn from two types of subject matter , ex

historiis, by which he means from fantastic, mythological or romantic
tales and ex veritate ac re, which were based on real facts with the names
of the localities also added.25
In all probability, the invectives studied here belong to the Augustan
period.26 It was at around this time that Seneca the Elder wrote down his
own recollections of the rhetores and their art for his sons, recollections
that include sententiae, divisiones, and colores, consisting for the most
part of quotations from speakers he had heard in his youth. 27 He also adds
prefaces that elaborate on the practice of declamation and refers to the

major declaimers of the time. Students of the Augustan age would have
read such prefaces. Seneca states that the declamations he discusses,
most dating from some twenty to thirty years after the death of Cicero,
were a novelty – rem post me natam ;28 new in both subject-matter and
style.29 Without delving further into what exactly Seneca meant by the
term declamation, it is worth noting that rhetorical exercises had been
practised in schools from 5 th century BC Greece, 30 and in Rome since
Lucius Plotius Gallus had established his school of rhetoric in Rome. 31
Roman declamation had transformed from the thesis (before the time of
Cicero) to the causa (contemporary with Cicero), and finally to a newer
exercise, the controversia (also called by the Greek name scholastica)
which arose after Seneca’ s birth. 32 Cicero’s criticism of rhetors whose
declamations became displays of verbose virtuosity also points to the
change from the old to the new style.33
The older controversia was a relatively simple treatment of a legal
case, not necessarily dependent on reality for its subject-matter; intended
primarily for practical training. It was usually delivered privately or at
school, and probably balanced the need for vocal f ine-tuning, rhetorical
flourishes, and sound argumentation. The newer forms of the controver-
25 Cf. Suet. Gram. et Rhet. 25. See also Sussman 1978, 4 f.

26 See Pelling 1996; 1349; CHCL II 1982; 269.
27 Sen. Contr. 1, pr. 1–5. See Gwynn 1964, 158 ff.
28 Ibid. 12.
29 Gwynn 1964, 159.
30 Corbeill 2007, 71 f.; Fairweather 1981, 102 ff.; Russell 1983, 1 ff.
31 See above p. 4.
32 Cf. Quint. 2, 1, 9; 3, 5, 5; 8; Cic.Inv. 1, 8; De or. 1, 138; 3, 109;Top. 79; Part. Or.
4; 61; Or. 46, 125; Sen.Contr. 1 praef. 12; Suet.Rhet. 1, 5. See also Clarke 1951,
159 ff.
33 Cic. De or. 1, 149–150.
siae arose from the introduction of audiences and the status of these per-
formances as a means of entertainment. In an effort to entertain the audi-
ence, which was often composed of men with similar oratorical
pretensions, the declaimers flaunted their rhetorical talents, delighting in
the flamboyance of their delivery; thus embellishment and exaggeration
characterised the new controversia and differentiated it from the some-
what more staple fare of the old.34 They also declaimed in such a way as
to prepare themselves for the rebuttal of their opponents, ‘occasionally
translating Greek texts and composing eulogies or invectives on famous
men’, as Suetonius puts it.35
1.1.3 The Schools of Rhetoric in Rome
The schools of rhetoric were the final stage in the educational process of
a student at Rome.36 Having previously studied in the school of a littera-
tor where the pupil was given the rudiments of an education, and then
under a grammaticus who focused on the study of Greek and Latin poets
and historians, the student was ready for the more advanced approaches
of the rhetor. A distinction was thus drawn between the teaching of a
grammarian and the instruction of the rhetorician to whom boys might be
sent from the age of twelve.37 The rhetorical schools concentrated on the
study of prose writers and the techniques of argumentation and presenta-
tion including rhetorical techniques; in practice however the advanced
stages of a grammatical education often overlapped with the introductory
stages of an education in rhetoric. Furthermore, grammarians introduced
their students to the first stages of written composition, a task that could
well be continued in the rhetorical schools.
As rhetorical sessions or competitions grew in popularity there was a
steady transformation from the late Republic, when adults declaimed pri-
marily in private gatherings of close friends as was the case with Cicero, 38
34 Sussman 1978, 10. Cf. Quint. 1, 2, 30–31.

35 interdum Graecorum scripta convertere ac viros illustres laudare vel vituperare,
Suet. Gram. et r het. 25, 4. Cf. Quint. 2, 4, 20; 3, 7; Theon. 2, 109f f; Aphth. 2,
35 ff. Cf. Cic. Phil. 5, 19.
36 Apul. Flor. 4, 20. For further on this theme, see Parks 1945; Kennedy 1972;
Morgan 1998, 190–239.
37 Corbeill 2007, 70; Kennedy 1994, 81 ff., cf. Parks 1945, 61.
38 Cf. Cic. Brut. 310; Fam. 9, 16, 7; Sen.Contr. 1 pr. 11; Suet. Rhet. 1. See Sussman
1978, 15, Bonner 1969, 39–42.
to larger competitive gatherings of adult rhetors declaiming on the same

subjects, sometimes lasting several days. 39 Thus the rhetors competed
with theatrical performances, mimes and even the delights of the arena as
a source of entertainment for the Roman populace.
Despite its entertainment value, the primary factor in the popularity
of declamation was its importance in Roman education, 40 something
recognised even by Seneca the Elder with his somewhat condescending
attitude.41 Though there are references to consuls, praetors, and even
some senators attending the halls of the rhetors,42 these seem to have been
exceptions to the norm as the schools were attended primarily by pueri
and iuvenes.43
The atmosphere in such schools with their strict discipline, their
institutionalised use of examples, and their varied exercises is preserved
in the writings of Quintillian. T. Morgan, who studied rhetorical exercises
preserved on papyrus, has argued that rhetorical exercises werefrequently
employed as a means of improving oral and written skills, not necessarily
only as a tool for high oratory; these surviving papyral fragments reveal
that students learnt not so much the art of persuasion but rather studied
various methods of articulation. 44 Thus students were trained to rewrite
or re-narrate the received passive education, only later becoming active
users of it. Rhetoric was it seems the vehicle for the transformation of
the pupil from a passive recipient into an active user and transmitter of
knowledge.
Although oratory and its importance declined with the demise of the
Republic, training in this skill was still considered important and com-
prised the fundamental element in Roman education. A thorough knowl-
edge of rhetoric and a modicum of eloquence therefore remained indis-
pensable for any political or even professional career under the Empire.45
39 Cf. Sen Contr. 1, 7, 13; 2, 1, 25.

40 Cf. Quint. 10, 5, 14. See Sussman 1978, 17; Bornecque 1902, 88.
41 Cf. Sen Contr. 2, pr. 3.
42 Sen. Contr. 9, 4, 18; 1, 2, 22; 1, 3, 11. See Parks 1945, 64.
43 Ibid. 1, 3, 10; 1 pr. 24; 1, 1, 22; 2, pr. 1.
44 See Morgan 1998, 197 ff.
45 Cf. Tac. Dial. 36; see Sussman 1978, 17; Parks 1945, 15 ff.
1.1.4 The importance of imitation
Imitation was a basic feature of rhetoric, a fundamental principle of lit-

erary composition. A Latin canon, which included the poets Catullus,
Virgil, Horace, and Ovid and the prose-writers Cicero, Sallust, and Livy
steadily emer ged and later writing was richly allusive to such earlier
texts.
Imitatio ( «) had as its goal the determination of the features
that were characteristic of some canonical author and their use as a tool
in one’s own text. 46 Although Plato in his P
and Aristotle in his
Pλ
« often employed the concept of «, by which they
meant the representation of objects through language and art,47 the more
common usage of the term was rhetorical, revealing the dependence of
one author upon another one.
Memory has been known as the mother of the Muses, 48 and thus it
should come as no surprise that talented poets have always been in a dia-
logue with the poetical tradition up until their time.49 In the Greco-Roman
literary tradition, almost every author acknowledged his antecedents. 50
Thus imitatio did not have its modern negative connotation, but was
rather a positive feature of any writer’s work.
The thorough study and imitation of selected specimens of speech
started however in the 5 th century with the sophists. Beginning in the 4 th
century when regular schools of rhetoric became common and in parti-
cular with Isocrates, the most outstanding of Gor gias’ students, it was
thought that a student who had some natural capacity could be educated
further through imitation and practice. Isocrates himself provides
examples for imitation. His students wrote speeches, which he corrected
46 Conte-Most 1996, 749. See also Clark 1951, 1 1–22; Clark 1957, 144–176; De
Rentiis 1998, 235–303; Cizek 1994 passim etc.
47 See Koller 1954, 15–21; 63–68; 104–119.
48 Cf. Hes. Theog. 53–55; Alcm. 8, 9; Eumel. 16; Solon 1, 1; h. Herm . 429.
Memory for the oral poets was always of great importance (cf.Il. 2, 488ff.), but
Memory can be a kind of Muse herself and be directly invoked as such (cf. Plat.
Euthyd. 275CD, h. Herm . 425–433). See Hesiod Theogony , ed. with Prole-
gomena and Commentary by M. L. West. Oxford, 1966; 174.
49 See Eliot T. S. Tradition and the Individual Talent / Eliot T. S. Selected Essays.
London, 1999 (=1972); 14 ff.
50 See a collection of articles devoted to literary imitation in Creative Imitation
and Latin Literature. Ed. by D. W est and T. Woodman. Cambridge, 1979, and
especially an introductory survey there by Russell 1979, 1–16.
and improved. A success ful imitation was for Isocrates more important
than thematic originality.51
In ancient schools pupils used to exercise with canonical texts which
they learnt by heart or paraphrased or translated, selecting interesting
excerpts and writing commentaries on them or comparing them with
other texts. They would frequently rewrite such texts in the style of other
authors. And all these techniques would be employed not only with prose
writers but also with poetry.52
Ancient rhetoricians and pedagogues discussed the methods and also
the dangers of imitatio; one of the most interesting surviving treatments
of the subject is by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who lived and worked in
Rome during the Augustan period. Dionysius challenged the stylistic
standards of his immediate predecessors and instead proposed a return to
the Attic style of the 5 th and 4 th century BC from Thucydides to Demos-
thenes. Imitating these super-models thus became an essential element in
the teaching of rhetoric. The corpus of acceptable paradigms was referred
to as , the books;53 a pagan parallel to the Jewish and Christian
scriptures, as D. A. Russell points out.54 The rhetorical culture of the first
four centuries AD was indeed a civilization of ‘the books’. Dionysius of
Halicarnassus wrote three books on the subject: the f irst discussed the
character of the process, the second listed desired models and the third
described how imitation should be carried out (« ).55
Other ancient works written on the theme of literary and rhetorical
imitation were Rhetorica ad Her ennium,56 Cicero’s rhetorical essays, 57
the Controversiae of Seneca the Elder, the letters of Seneca the Younger,58
‘On the Sublime’ ,59 and Quintilian. 60 Quintilian made a detailed list of
useful authors and added his own considerations on the topic. Dionysius
and Quintilian were concerned with the use of imitation as a means to
teaching rhetoric, and particularly as a means towards acquiring verbal
51 Cf. Isocr. 4 (Panegyr.), 10.

52 See Sen. Suas. 3, 7 on Ovid.
53 Dion. Ars rhet. 298, 1.
54 Russell 1979, 3.
55 See further on the topic Hidber 1996, 67 ff.
56 Her. 1, 4; 4, 2.
57 Cic. De orat. 2, 90–93.
58 Sen. Ep. 114.
59 Subl. 13–14.
60 Quint. 10, 1–2.
aptitude; indeed the theories developed by these scholars come close to

modern theories on intertextuality.
Allusion played a leading role in these early literary theories; via allusions
later authors could demonstrate that they belonged to the same genre as
an earlier one. Parody was however neglected as ancient imitation al-
ways involved admiration.61 Ancient discussions of imitation understand
the term to mean emulation combined with rivalry (
«, aemulatio),
not simple dependence; they recommended the critical study of a variety
of models in order to help the student or author embody the prototype
into his own writings. Before aemulatio became a theoretic term in 1 st
century AD, rhetoricians used imitari and aemulari as synonyms.62
Thus the respect for and imitation of predecessors was a basic element
in ancient education, and the invectives against Cicero and Sallust, which
imitate the stylistic features of both writers, can be regarded in this context
as typical and necessary products of the educational tradition of their time.
1.2 Generic features of invective
“Invective” (invectiva, from oratio invectiva, from invehor) means abus-

ive speech, or refers to an abusive written text. The word appeared in this
form remarkably late, no earlier than the 4 th century AD.63 Rhetoricians,
grammarians and scholiasts used the adjective invectivus, but as a noun
the word invectiva was first fixed in its modern meaning in Tyrannius Rufi-
nus of Aquileia 64 (ca. AD 345–410), and in the grammarian Diomedes 65
(2nd half of the 4 th century AD) and Cledonius 66 (5 th century AD).67
61 It is important to bear in mind that while mimesis was praised, plagiarism,

termed
or furta, was considered abhorrent. Cf. Russell 1979, 11.
62 See Bauer 1992, 141 ff.
63 For a thorough and detailed analysis of invective in Ancient literature, see:
Koster 1980. See also Nisbet 1989, 192–193.
64 Rufin. Apol. adv. Hier. II 33, II 43.
65 Diom. Art. Gram. I. In: Gram. Lat. (ed. Keil ) I 330, 1.
66 Cledon. Art. Gram. In: Gram. Lat. (ed. Keil ) V 77, 6.
67 Cf. Powell 2007, 1, who argues that the word invectiva occurred first in Ammia-
nus Marcellinus (ca. AD 330–ca. 395). Ammianus used the expression oratio
invectica in RG 21, 10, 7, volumen invectivum in RG 22, 14, 2, the neuter plural
invectiva in RG 28, 1, 20. It is difficult to prove who was in fact irst,
f but it would
seem that the word used as a term in this sense appeared around the middle of the
4th century AD.
1.2 Generic features of invective 13
Though the late appearance of oratio invectiva as a term is interesting in

itself, the practice long pre-existed its characterisation, as can be seen in
the other terms used for this form of attacking speech.
Invective is a literary form that aims to humiliate its object in public
by any possible means and which addresses the object by name. 68 The
concept of invective was of course broader than just a form of speech
as it stemmed from the ur ge to disparage, termed
« in Greek and
vituperatio in Latin. 69 A vituperatio was supposed to be the opposite
of a speech of praise ( laus), rather than stressing virtues, like prudence,
justice, courage etc., it was their absence that was emphasized. 70 There
are a whole range of terms linked to this process both in Greek and
Latin, each with its own specific associations, examples being:

,

«,
,
«,
, contumelia, convicium, det-
rectatio, exprobatio, infamatio, iniuria, maledictio, oppr obrium, repre-
hensio etc.
Quintilian refers to Aristotle and Theophrastus who claim that laus
and vituperatio are not relevant to the world of practice (parte negotiali)
and belong only to the epideictic. However, Roman custom, says Quinti-
lian, had found a place for them in the practical field (negotiis).71
Roman invective was built on Greek rhetorical rules. Though it is
sometimes possible to outline the component parts of an invective
speech, in practice we see that there are a number of dif ferent potential
variations on this rhetorical prototype. 72 Two almost contemporary text-
books, Rhetorica ad Her ennium and Cicero’ s De inventione, both pro-
vide a list of sorts with topics for speeches of praise or of reproach. These
topics can be gathered into three groups: 1) external elements, such as
birth, education, citizenship etc.; 2) physical attributes like strength,
weakness etc.; and, 3) the virtutes animi and their opposites.73
The headings numerated by the grammarian and rhetorician Aelius
Festus Aphthonius (3 rd century AD) can also serve as markers of the
68 Quint. 3, 7, 4 ff. See Koster 1980, 38–39. See also Arena 2007, 149 ff.
69 Detailed theoretical information on abusive speech in Greek rhetoric is to be
found in Rhet. ad Alex . 3; 35; for Roman rhetoric see Her. 3, 6–8. Cf. Powell
2007, 4.
70 Her. 3, 10–15; Cic. Inv. 1, 34–36; 2, 177–178. See also Craig 2004, 188 ff.
71 Quint. 3, 7, 1f. Powell points out that this is “a useful starting-point for considera-
tion of the role of praise and vituperation in Roman oratory”. See Powell 2007, 4.
72 See Levy 1946, 58.
73 Craig 2004, 188 f.
traditional patterns of invective. 74 Six invective

are outlined in
Aphthonius:

, or Prologue; then Narration ( «) follows,
including:
«, or Race and Genealogy; $
φ, or Nurture and
Education; !" «, or Deeds; # «, or Comparison; and, f inally,
%

«, or Epilogue, which concludes the invective. 75 However, from
the standard six
in Aphthonius the number of conventional themes
of invective has increased to seventeen following the thorough analysis
of a number of modern scholars. 76 The latest list of
, compiled by
Ch. Craig, includes: 1) embarrassing family origins; 2) being unworthy
of one’s family; 3) physical appearance; 4) eccentricity of dress; 5) glut-
tony and drunkenness, possibly leading to acts of crudelitas and libido;
6) hypocrisy for appearing virtuous; 7) avarice, possibly linked with
prodigality; 8) taking bribes; 9) pretentiousness; 10) sexual misconduct;
11) hostility to family; 12) cowardice in war; 13) squandering of one’ s
patrimony or financial embarrassment; 14) aspiring toregnum or tyranny,
associated with vis, libido, superbia , and crudelitas; 15) cruelty to
citizens and allies; 16) plunder of private and public property; 17) ora-
torical ineptitude. Each of these
could be employed in any of the
possible literary forms of invective and did not necessarily follow a set
order. Thus they could be used in a Senate speech, in the Forum, in an
iambic poem, a politic pamphlet, an epigram, or even an essay.
The first and main task of any invective was to convince the audi-
ence, in other words to make the accusation (or should we say slander?)
stick. All too often, convincing was more important than the truth of the
accusations. At the same time though, the orator wished to elicit pleasure
and to amuse his audience. These same factors underlie the personal
attacks of Old Comedy , insulting songs at weddings (called Fescennini
from the Etruscan town of Fescennia near Falerii),77 political caricatures,
and also the origin and existence of the iambic genre itself, which was
originally based on the urge to rebuke and scold.
Finally, two further features, concerning Roman invective in general,
and the invectives studied here in particular , should be noted. First, it
seems to have been considerably more ef ficient to attack the character
74 RG 2.36.7–19 (Aphthonius; cf. 2.40.14–17).

75 See also Cizek 1994, 294 ff.
76 Nisbet (1961, 192ff.) offered a list of such loci, partly based on the register that
Süss (1910, 245 ff.) had compiled for the Greek orators. Later Merrill (1975,
203 f.) collected Cicero’ s loci, with their antecedents in Latin rhetoric. Craig
combined all these lists, see Craig 2004, 190 f.; see also Arena 2007, 150.
77 Cf. Catull. 61, 119–148.
1.3 The invectives of Sallust as a part of the rhetorical tradition 15
of one’s political opponent, rather than his political principles; that is

why political deeds, touched in both invectives, serve as evidence of the
quality of their doer .78 Secondly, Roman invective had a conventional
character and did not pay much attention to historical truth. 79 As will be
shown in the commentary to the invectives, oratorical flourishes are fre-
quently preferred to the preservation of a sense of reality.
The existence of repeated legislation against
« reveals how im-
portant invective was in both Greece and Rome.80
1.3 The invectives of Sallust

as a part of the rhetorical tradition
It is important to bear in mind that the attribution of texts to specif

ic auth-
ors was frequently bona fide in the ancient world, without this being con-
sidered a deceit. A novice to the world of literature would credit his works
to his teacher ’s name rather than to his own, especially if he adopted
themes, composition or style from his instructor . Composing a speech
according to the style of some famous orator was standard practice.
An example of such exercises may be seen in Seneca’ s Suasoriae.
Seneca gives seven examples of Suasoriae, and two of these concern
Cicero’s last hours. 81 Historical accuracy was not considered to be sig-
nificant; in the seventh suasoria Cicero is imagined deliberating whether
to burn his writings when he is told that he could save his life by doing so.
There is however no reason to believe he was in reality given such a
choice. This absence of historical accuracy in Seneca mirrors the absence
of historical accuracy in the invectives against Cicero and Sallust we are
considering here.
Seneca’s Suasoriae reveal Cicero’s influence on the generation after
his death, Cicero being presented as a martyr. But Cicero was not always
held in such esteem;82 it was also apparently common practice to compose
declamations in answer to Cicero’s speeches; the rhetoricians Messala and
78 See especially Dunkle 1967, 171.

79 Cf. Nisbet 1961, 192 ff.; Arena 2007, 157 f. This does not mean however that
when a case was heard in court the advocates did not deliver speeches in order to
negate false accusations. See Powell 2007, 7f. For a discussion of the credibility
of Roman invectives, see Powell 2007, 19 f.
80 Watson, 1996, 762.
81 Sen. Suas. 6–7.
82 See Gwynn 1964, 160 f.
Asinius Pollio, for example, writing speeches in defence of Catiline,83 and

the rhetorician Cestius Pius writing a response to Cicero’ s Pro Milone. 84
Brutus wrote a Pro Milone of his own as a school exercise. 85 Sometimes
these speeches were attributed to some well-known orator of Cicero’ s day:
Asconius Pedianus referred to two such speeches in answer to Cicero’s In
toga candida, one attributed to Catiline, the other to Gaius Antonius.86
The invectives examined here are, in all probability , examples of such

imaginary speeches, created in the context of the rhetorical schools of
Rome; they are exercises or declamations of rhetoricians in a rhetorical
school, probably during the Augustan period when the taste for the Cice-
ronian was at a low ebb. 87 They exhibit all the features of canonical
invective as indicated by the scholars:88 the invective against Cicero con-
tains exordium (1, 1), narratio (or tractatio) (1, 2 – 3, 6), and peroratio
(4, 7). At the end of the exordium and inside the narratio we have refer-
ences to genealogy and education (1, 1–2; 3, 4) and to deeds (1, 2– 4, 7).
The invective against Sallust contains exordium (1, 1 – 1, 3), narratio
(2, 4 – 8, 22), andperoratio (8, 22). In theexordium and on two occasions
in the narratio there are references to genealogy and childhood (1, 1; 2,4;
5, 13) and to deeds (5, 13 – 8, 21). The invective against Sallust is pres-
ented as a response by Cicero to Sallust’ s invective against Cicero, 89
which is why it includes Cicero’s apologies, a denial of Sallust’s claims
(2, 5 – 4, 12) followed by an attack on Sallust himself (5, 13 – 8, 22). 90
It is worth noting here also that Sallust’

s invectives were not always termed
invectives even in the manuscripts as they survive today . Some manu-
scripts use the term declamatio, others oratio in, yet others, more simply,
Sallustius in Ciceronem et invicem. The term invectiva for both speeches
was however fixed in one of the oldest manuscripts H (10th century).91
83 Quint. 10, 1, 24. On Republican speeches of doubtful authenticity see Clift 1945,
92 ff.
84 Sen. Contr. 3, praef. 15; Quint. 10, 5, 20.
85 Quint. 10, 1, 23; 5, 20.
86 Ascon. 84: Huic orationi Cicer onis et Catilina et Antonius contumeliose
responderunt, quod solum poterant, invecti in novitatem eius.
87 Cf. Kennedy 1972, 297.
88 See above p. 13 f.
89 Cf. Sall. 2.
90 See below p. 18 ff.
91 See ch. 2, p. 90 ff.
1.4 The historical context of the invectives 17
1.4 The historical context of the invectives
The invectives were meant to represent speeches in the Senate, the f irst
by Sallust against Cicero, the second Cicero’s reply to Sallust. The invec-
tive against Cicero is a short, bitter attack on his private life, full of allu-
sions to the years after his return from exile. It depicts the political situ-
ation in Rome in the autumn of 54 BC.92 The invective against Sallust on
the other hand does not limit itself to the same time-scale but rather
covers the entire life of Sallust.
Cicero returned from his exile in Macedonia in 57 BC with Pompey’s
support and with the support of the tribune T itus Annius Milo. He was
warmly welcomed on his return both in Italy and in Rome. In 56 Caesar ,
Pompey and Crassus renewed their political union, 93 and Cicero had to
speak on a public platform in favour of Caesar,94 as seen in the De provin-
ciis consularibus. In 54 he even defended supporters of the Three, who had
previously been his enemies, in court: Publius Vatinius (praetor in 55) suc-
cessfully and Aulus Gabinius (consul in 58), who had incurred Cicero’ s
hatred for scorning his appeals for help when he was sent into exile in 58,
unsuccessfully. The invective against Cicero reflects the situation after
Cicero’s defence of Vatinius, but before he had become the advocate for
Gabinius, since the case involving Gabinius is not mentioned.95 Cicero was
intimidated by the fiasco of his failed defence of Milo in a court filled to
the brim with Pompey’s troops. Milo, a candidate of the Senate, was im-
peached for the murder of Clodius in the via Appia in January of 52 BC.
This was the year that Sallust’s political career begins.96 Sallust’s family
was of plebeian origin and he held the office of Tribune of the Commons
in 52 BC. The consular elections were not held that year as Clodius was
killed on Milo’s orders. While Cicero defended Milo, Sallust took sides
92 For a detailed analysis of the historical background, see Bolaf fi 1949, Büchner
1960, Clift 1945, Olivieri Sangiacomo 1954, Paladini 1948, Schmid 1993, Seel
1966, Syme 1964, V retska 1961, and also Gabba 1957, Hejnic 1956, Oertel
1951, Reitzenstein 1898. See also Ernout’s preface to his edition of Sallust: Ern-
out, 1989 (11941); 7–15 and Schanz – Hosius, Geschichte der Römischen Liter-
atur I, 370–373. For a bibliography of Sallust’s time, see Leeman 1965. See also
Massa 2006, 416 ff.
93 Suet. Iul. 24, et passim.
94 Cf. Cic. Att. 4, 5; Fam. 1, 9. Cf. also Sall. 12.
95 Cf. Powell 2007, 3.
96 Sall. Cat. 3, 3.
against Cicero and Milo. 97 Sallust was in Rome when his somewhat
undistinguished political career culminated in his expulsion from the
Senate in 51 BC by the censors Appius Claudius Pulcher and Calpurnius
Piso.98 In 49 BC Sallust was reappointed by Caesar to a quaestorship, and
became once more a member of the Senate. In 48BC he commanded one
of Caesar’s legions in Illyricum and was defeated. 99 In 47 he was again
unsuccessful in Campania,100 but in 46 as a praetor he succeeded in com-
pleting his mission on the island of Circina 101 and was rewarded with a
posting as governor of Numidia and Africa.102 After returning to Rome he
was accused of extortion, but acquitted, perhaps, as the author of the in-
vective against Sallust would have it, having bribed Caesar .103 It is cer-
tain, however, that Sallust became very wealthy indeed. The invective
against Sallust refers to all these events.104
1.5 The content of the invectives
1.5.1 The content of the invective against Cicero
Sallust’s invective against Cicero begins with the seemingly reserved but
actually supercilious statement that he would endure Cicero’s abuse if he
believed that it stemmed from considered opinion rather than a diseased
mind.105 Turning to the Senate, Sallust broadens his attack, for the prob-
lem, as he expostulates it, is not Cicero in and of himself, but the Roman
state, people and the senators,106 who provide sustenance for such men as
Cicero. The following sentence (Ubiubi M. Tullius leges iudicia rem pub-
licam defendit) offers a none-too-subtle ironic paradox, a manoeuvre that
97 See Ascon. Pro Mil. 33, 37, 45, 49.

98 Dio Cass. 40, 63, 4. Shackleton Bailey argues, that both the censors are referred
to in Sall. 16. Cf. SB 385; see ch. 4 p. 183.
99 Oros. 6, 15, 8.
100 Dio Cass. 42, 52.
101 Bell. Afr. 8; 34.
102 Bell. Afr. 97.
103 Sall. 19.
104 Sall. 15–20.
105 Cf. Cic. Pis. Fr. 4; see Koster 1980, 177. On the content of the invectives, see
also Becker 1973, 742–754; Ernout80–84; Koster 1980, 177–200; Vretska 1961,
II 9–62. Cf. Hands 1959, 59 f.; Nisbet 1989, 197 f., and Süss 1910, 260–263.
106 See Koster 1980, 178.
1.5 The content of the invectives 19
was probably supposed to bear witness to the author ’s rhetorical dexter-

ity; as he argues, if the state must be protected from this Cicero, it surely
cannot be the case that Cicero should himself be the defender of its laws,
of legal proceedings and indeed the state itself. There follows a tradi-
tional
« on Cicero’ s origins, 107 a man who, pace Sallust, presents
himself as if he were a relative of Scipio’s rather than a “neophyte” and a
“city novice”. With this, the introductory exordium, in which Sallust de-
clares Cicero to be not only his enemy but also the enemy of the Roman
Senate, comes to a close.
There follows in the second paragraph (2) another

« of invective,
a reference to Cicero’s youthful sexual perversity in his relations with his
teacher Marcus Piso. W ith an epic grandiloquent formula from Lucre-
tius,108 used as parody in the current invective context, Sallust proceeds
to reproach the opulence of Cicero’s house, his sacrilegious wife and his
incestuous daughter.109 The house had been built on the proceeds of viol-
ence and stolen booty. We have here a comparison of the homo flagitio-
sissimus, Cicero, with the previous owner of the house, vir clarissimus,
Publius Crassus. The next passage (3) is as corrupted in its transmission,
as Cicero, if we are to believe Sallust, was corrupt in his conduct of state
affairs; Cicero pretends to be the guardian of the city while he is in fact its
executioner.110
A further line of attack commences, this time targeting those state activ-
ities Cicero planned in conjunction with his wife T erentia; Cicero and
Terentia had decided affairs of state from their home and censured con-
spirators with fines in reverse proportion to the favours they had rendered
him in the past. It is very easy to prove whether Cicero took bribes, the at-
tack continues, all that is needed is to calculate how much money he in-
herited from his father , how much he received from his trials, and with
what funds he built his villas in Tusculum and Pompeii. The conclusion
according to Sallust, is clear: the bulk of Cicero’s money came from the
blood and deprivations of the citizens of Rome.

108 Cf. verum ut opinor Lucr. 1, 684; 5, 330. Also Cic.Rosc. Amer. 49; Verr. 2, 1, 26;
Caec. 21. See Koster 1980, 180.
109 Again a device used in rhetorical schools, cf. Sen. Contr. Exc. 5, 2, 1; 6, 6.
110 Cf. Liv. 2, 56, 7; 2, 35,1. On this passage see Koster 1980, 181.
The next passage again displays the use of irony (4). 111 It too seem-
ingly starts as a laudation until, reading on – or rather hearing on as the
original audience must have done – we find the phrase “on the contrary”,
a phrase that reverses the meaning of the preceding words. The language
gains considerable force through the use of a list of strong nouns with-
out verbs, creating the effect of a battering of hail on a wintry day. A tool
frequently used in invective involves the cancelling of the meaning of
the noun through the use of a derogatory adjective; 112 thus, levissimus
senator, mercennarius patronus (“a most unreliable senator, patron for a
fee”).113 To convince his listeners, Sallust quotes ironically from Cicero’s
poem “On the consulship”, trying in this way to depict a Cicero deluded,
convinced of his own greatness, against all the facts.
Sallust again (5) denies Cicero’s words with that same “on the contrary”
(immo vero). Another quotation from the Cicero’ s poem follows, but
the final word laudi is changed to linguae. Thus his “conceited tongue”
is stressed, no doubt to a good chuckle from the audience. 114 Cicero
is depicted as a deceitful poet who grabbed power through arms. The

harangue continues, rounding of f the narratio, with a striking compari-
son of Cicero to the dictator Sulla.
Finally Sallust prepares the conclusion to his invective (7). He para-

phrases and parodies Cicero’s poems on his consulship even employing
Cicero’s hexametrical rhythm: Minerva omnis artis edocuit .115 Jupiter,
the kindest and the greatest of the gods, admitted Cicero to the divine
council, and Italy brought him back from exile upon her shoulders. 116 An-
other ironic, or, rather, sarcastic, sentence follows: it starts in the form of
an address, oro te Romule Arpinas , resembling the formal solemnity of
a prayer and continues with the somewhat grandiose words egregia tua
111 See Koster 1980, 183, who argues that verum ut opinor, homo novus Arpinas were
a hexameter, appropriate for a panegyric to Cicero; see also to virtus est animi.
112 Koster 1980, 184.
113 This rhetorical device may be discussed in greater detail through a comparison
of the whole passage with the second letter to Caesar of Pseudo-Sallust, and also
with a Latin translation of a lost passage by Lycurgus, quoted by Rutilius Lupus
(cf. below ch. 3, p. 113 f.).
114 “In any dissection of Cicero the venomous and hated tongue could not easily be
forgotten”, see Nisbet 1958, 31. Cf. V retska 1961, II 52 ff.; Koster 1980, 185.
115 See Koster 1980, 186.
116 Cf. Cic. 7. See p. 158–159.
virtute. Exposing the huge gap between what Cicero purported himself
to be and what he was in fact, Sallust addresses Cicero and asks him his
position in society, his role in the state and f inally to declare his friends
and his enemies. The invective thus achieves its aim through the fre-
quently repeated idea that Cicero changed his political stance “for a fee”.
Cicero is presented as a political nobody, a “totally unreliable renegade”,
loyal neither the one side nor to the other.117 How then can Cicero respond
to these accusations?
1.5.2 The content of the invective against Sallust
Cicero’ invective against Sallust is a more or less exact answer to the in-
vective against Cicero. 118 It includes clear refutation of all the claims
made in the first invective, and also, not to be outdone, a thorough attack
on Sallust himself. The f irst paragraph (1) with its circuitous assault on
his enemy has a fully Ciceronian feel. If Cicero were to deny all Sallust’ s
slanders, he would have to relate his own life and deeds, thus revealing
his own glory and provoking the envy of his opponents. If, on the other
hand, he were to relate Sallust’ life and deeds, he would inevitably and of
necessity descend to Sallust’s base level.
The second paragraph (2) continues with the same theme: Cicero claims
that he, in contrast to Sallust, would cause as little vexation to his audi-
ence as possible and would not stoop to “giving a false account”. Even
more: he would say nothing new; all is already well known to the
senators. The aim of this opening is clear: to turn Sallust’s words on him-
self and differentiate between Cicero’s defence and Sallust’s base attack.
Cicero is now free to denigrate Sallust, while claiming not to be in the
least bit interested in attacking him.
Since Cicero is addressing the senators in the second paragraph he
speaks about Sallust in the third person, and thus Sallust is presented as
an isolated lone f igure, a fact that is stressed by the use of the pronoun
unus quisque nostrum (each of us) which is opposed to Sallust him-
self (3).119 Sallust’s life, Cicero continues, should be judged not from his
117 Cf. Cic. 5.

118 For the question as to whether the author of the two invectives was the same per-
son, see ch. 3, p. 117 f., 121, 123 f.
119 See Koster 1980, 191.
words but from his character . The exordium ends with the promise to
be short and a reference to Aeschines’ ‘Against Timarchus’, where it is
claimed that affairs of state evolve through private disputes where no pri-
vate citizen can conceal his character.120 The exordium is more extensive
than that of the first invective (which again could be an imitation of Cice-
ro’s extensiveness); in this way Cicero aimed to draw the senators’ atten-
tion and render them well disposed to his ar guments, according to the
rules of rhetoric.121
The first part of thenarratio (4), again following the rules of rhetoric,
examines Sallust’s origins, his
«.122 Cicero asks Sallust: who were
the Scipios and the Metelli before they obtained glory through their
deeds and their impeccable life? And then follows up: ‘As if you were a
descendent of theirs, Sallust!’
The main characteristic of the f ifth paragraph is another

«, the
# «,123 a canonical comparison: ego meis maioribus virtute mea
praeluxi … tu tuis … magnas offudisti tenebras [With my merit I have
outshone my ancestors … Whereas you … have enveloped your ances-
tors in utter darkness]. Cicero boasts that for his own part he prefers to
live with his own actions, and not to rest contented with his ancestors’
glory; he wants to be a model for posterity in his own right. In any case
these ar guments are supposed to turn Sallust’ s accusations concerning
Cicero’s low birth on their head.
Cicero turns to the question of his poem on his consulship (7), parrying
the inferences Sallust had made in his invective. Togatus, a diplomat,
he outwitted those who were armed. Rome was fortunate to have him as
a consul, since he managed to put an end to the civil war . He further
reminds Sallust, that on a previous occasion he had praised Cicero’s con-
sulship in his writings.124 He then adds, transforming Sallust’s words, that
he is as far from impudicitia, as Sallust himself is to pudicitia.
The 8th paragraph opens with the rhetorical question, “But why should
I further complain about you?” Why indeed? There follows another
120 Cf. Aeschin. Tim. 2.

121 Cf. Rhet. Her. 1, 6; 3, 11. See Koster 1980, 192.
123 See above p. 14.
124 See below p. 170–171.
attack on Sallust’ s education, or rather , the lack thereof, this man

who does not understand that there can be no civis egr egius who is
not his artibus et disciplinis eruditus ! This does not however surprise
Cicero, since Sallust was, as he puts it, “slothful in the extreme and
decadent”.
Turning to the standard accusations concerning his wife and daugh-
ter (9), 125 Cicero parries brief ly and offensively: Sallust leads much the
more irrepressible sex life. There is no need, then, to refer to his relatives,
as Sallust himself provides suf ficient material for the disgrace of any
man. With suchlike brevity does Cicero dispatch the accusations con-
cerning his property: because I am worth it, or, in his own words, “I pos-
sess considerably less, than I am worth”,126 he claims.
The following section (10) commences with a question addressing
Cicero’s opponent: ego fugax, C. Sallusti? Cicero describes his exile as
a burden he preferred to endure rather than provoking “civil disagree-
ment for the whole of the Roman people”. He overturns Sallust’s accu-
sation: “all of you and the Roman people came out in crowds and con-
gratulated me on my return, with all the other days of my life, it would,
when I consider it, be the best. So highly did they value me, the ren-
egade, the patron for a fee!” 127 Cicero’s replies to Sallust’s barbs con-
tinue unabated: not “at the beck and call of any private person”, Cicero
wished only for peace and “was not afraid of anything, apart from the
laws”.128
In the twelfth paragraph he rounds of f his of fensive self-defence and

from the thirteenth he turns openly on Sallust himself: “And now to you,
Sallust”. After this dramatic moment, the first open attack returns to the
commonplace of the origin. He would not bother talking about Sallust’ s
father, as he could not have done anything worse for the state than to
have spawned such a good-for-nothing son. There is therefore no sense in
talking about Sallust’s pueritia; far better to turn directly to his adoles-
centia.129 Sallust procured his riches through prostituting himself, but
when he became older and could not satisfy his clients any more, he was
“carried away with incessant cravings wishing to try on others all those
125 Cf. Cic. 2.

126 Cf. Cic. 3–4.
127 Cf. Cic. 5; 7.
128 Cf. Cic. 7.
129 See Koster 1980, 195 f.
things he did not consider disgusting for his own body”. Cicero proceeds
through Sallust’s career (14). He was twice hauled before a judge, but
having managed to scrape his way out of his predicament, he obtained the
quaestorship and became infamous for his adulteries. 130 “Your audacity
outfoxes our diligence”, declares Cicero in mock-triumph (15). It was
due to this immorality that Sallust was expelled from the Senate and “we
saw you no more, except perhaps in those military camps where all the
dregs of the state flowed”, in other words he joined up with Caesar (16).
After arms overwhelmed the state, Sallust was reinstated into the Senate
and there became a paradigm of corruption (17).
Having completed his quaestorship, Sallust found himself one of the

gang described as coetus omnium vitiorum (18). His praetorship fol-
lowed, and Cicero’s audience is reminded that he plundered Inner Africa;
Rome’s allies had never suffered as heavily in war as they suffered during
his governorship in time of peace (19). His arbitrariness knew no limits;
he exhausit quantum potuit … quantum voluit . To avoid judicial pro-
ceedings he even went so far as to bribe Caesar . Here Cicero employs
the same device as Sallust had done in the earlier invective: should any
of these accusations be false, Sallust can refute them in front of the
senators. And then, with all the grace of a boomerang in reverse swing,
he retorts: “How is it that you, who could not even pawn back your
father’s house, suddenly, as if in a dream became wealthy and procured
very precious gardens, 131 the T iburtine country house of Caius Caesar
and the rest of your properties?” 132 This
« is again a # «,
Cicero blaming Sallust for those very faults, which Sallust f irst hurled
against him, while at the same time defending himself from the earlier
attacks (19–20).
In full sarcastic swing Cicero ponders whether Sallust’s high offices
have rendered him unbearably arrogant, only to continue by comparing
Sallust’s relatively unimportant of ficial positions to his own more sub-
stantial achievements: “Do you, Caius Sallust, think, that it is the same
to be twice a senator and twice a quaestor, as to be twice a consular and
twice a triumphator?” (21). Sallust, Cicero superciliously concludes in
a crescendo of self-righteousness, may not speak against anybody else,
130 See Koster 1980, 196.

131 Cf. Tac. Ann. 13, 47; Hist. 3, 82.
132 See below p. 184–185.
since he has so many faults of his own.133 “You”, he says, “the parasite of
all others’ hospitality, the poacher in your youth of all others’ bedrooms,
and later their adulterous defiler, you are a disgrace to all ordered society
and an evocation of the civil war .” These few lines are a succinct sum-
mary of the whole of Cicero’s invective.
The last paragraph (22) commences with a tricolon with anaphora,
the thrice repeated desine; an appeal to Sallust to cease slandering people,
rein in his unbridled behaviour, and discontinue weighing up all others in
terms of his own ways-of-being. The invective here reaches its culmi-
nation. In the peroratio Cicero adds a brieffinis dicendi. The finis mirrors
the opening, thus framing the speech.
All in all, the first invective possesses a clearly defined structure accord-
ing to the prototypes of the time; some
, such as that of
«, are
mentioned in various contexts, rather than being developed in one para-
graph; thus, for example, Cicero was a reperticius, accitus ac paulo ante
insitus huic urbi civis, had no patrimonium and came from Lucius Cras-
sus’ family. Nonetheless, the quotations from Cicero’s poem on his con-
sulship and numerous parallels with Sallust’s and Cicero’s works reveal
the author’s acquaintance with these texts and also his efforts to imitate,
one of the basic features of the educational programmes in the rhetorical
schools of the time.
The second invective is much the better structured of the two.134 All
of Sallust’ s accusations are countered, the introduction mirrors the
conclusion framing the speech, and the sarcastic-supercilious-abus-
ive tone, disguised as defence, is maintained from the first word to the
last.
Both invectives are characterised by the canonical rules of the school

rhetorical tradition, where the
of vituperatio are clearly recog-
nised. No elements seem alien to this tradition; as a result these two in-
vectives offer an important insight into the nature of rhetoric at that time.
Irrespective of their authenticity , it is not irrelevant that a Quintillian,
no less, could attribute such a speech to Sallust. Despite the fact that the
content of the invectives seems puerile to our ears, it is important to re-
member that whether originally written by Cicero and Sallust or not, they
133 See Koster 1980, 198.

134 Ibid. 199.
could be received by a Roman writer, and no doubt by a Roman audience,

as original. In all probability however the invectives werecontroversiae,
written as declamatory exercises on an imaginary legal theme set in an
earlier historical context.
Chapter 2 The history of the text known as Sallust's invectives 27
Chapter 2
The history of the text known
as Sallust’s invectives based on collated medieval
manuscripts (10th – early 14th centuries)
For medieval manuscripts, the text can be represented using a stemma as

in p. 29. This stemma, f irst created by Jordan, 1 then amplified by Kur-
fess2 and Reynolds,3 is born out by the collation of new medieval manu-
scripts. This chapter deals both with important previously examined
manuscripts but also and indeed for the most part with newly examined
manuscripts (N, I, L, Q, Z, and Mp). The mistakes of the archetype, hyp-
archetypes, and also in some of the individual manuscripts, especially in
those cases when they are not enrolled in the stemma, i. e. are contami-
nated or conjectured, are analysed here on the basis of the completed
stemma.4
SIGLA:
consensus codicum AFKNTGBX
consensus codicum CDISLHbQREZMpHOPM
consensus codicum SLHbQREZMpHOPM
consensus codicum REZMpHOPM
consensus codicum HOPM
consensus codicum REZ
consensus codicum SLHbQ
consensus codicum AFKN
« correctiones vel coniecturae in uno vel pluribus codicibus recen-
tioribus inventae
1 Jordan added three manuscripts H, K and Hb to A, T, and B, which were known

from previous editions. See ch. 3, p. 145.
2 Kurfess added four manuscripts M, E, P and V to Jordan’ s stemma. See ch. 3,
p. 145 f.
3 Reynolds made two stemmata. See ch. 3, p. 146 ff.
4 See also the list of Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts containing the invec-
tives in Novokhatko 2002, 273–286.
28 Chapter 2 The history of the text known as Sallust's invectives
consensus codicum TGBX
consensus codicum CDI

omnium codicum consensus
A Gudianus lat. 335, s. X/XI
B Monacensis lat. 4611, s. XII
C Parisinus lat. 11127, c.1000
D Bodleianus Dorvillianus 77, s. X
E Monacensis lat. 14714, s. XII
F Laurentianus 50.45, s. XI
G Vaticanus lat. 3251, s. XI/XII
H Harleianus 2716, s. X
Hb Harleianus 3859, s. XII1
I Harleianus 4927, s. XII2
K Harleianus 2682, s. XI2
L Laurentianus 45.2, s. XII1
M Monacensis lat. 4611, s. XII
Mp Montpellier, 413, s. XII/XIII
N Brit. Mus. Add. 21242, s. XIII
O Bodleianus Rawl. G.43, s. XI
P Admontensis 363, s. XII
Q Cantabrigiensis, Trinity Col., Ms. 1381 (O. 8.6), s. XII
R Remensis 1329, s. XI2
S Edinburgensis Adv. 18.7.8. s. XI/XII
T Monacensis lat. 19472, s. XII
V Vaticanus lat. 17475, s. XIV
X Sanctae Crucis 228, s. XII
Z Sélestat 93, 7 (anc. 98), s. XIII
5 Manuscript V is late and contaminated, but, as will be shown further on, its read-
ings play an important role in some specif ic places. It has therefore been in-
cluded in the list here.
Chapter 2 The history of the text known as Sallust's invectives 29
STEMMA (on the basis of Reynolds’ stemma):

saec. X C D H
saec. XI1 A F O
saec. XI2 K R
saec. XI/XII G S
saec. XII T B X I L Q Hb E P M
saec. XIII N Z MP
2.1 Archetype &:
This archetype was seriously damaged. There are two signif icant omis-
sions and also numerous mainly insignificant mistakes by the scribe (for
example the damage of a word border in Sall. 21).6 The text was also in-
terpolated, mainly in order to improve it. Several attempts were also
made by the scribe to embellish it (Cic. 4; Sall. 3). Despite the high level
of damage there are novoces nihili in the text. In one instance we ifnd in-
terlinear scholia apparently included in the text.
The interpolation in Sall. 22 7 and the readings mentioned below in the

hyparchetype 8 reveal that the archetype included explanations and/or
variants in the text. The fact that both families ( and ) have numerous
variants9 reveals the presence of some of them in the archetype as well.
Interpolation:
Cic. 1 praedae Eussner] perfidiae : locum M: perfidiae locum V1, locum
del. V2
Cic. 2 delibuta TAld] debilitata rell.: debilitate N: debelitata B: dedita R:
debitata LO: dubitata P: delibitata P2
Cic. 2 habites ] habitares rell.: habitatores O
Cic. 4 esse opulentiam H] esse quin opulentiam Reynolds
Kurfess might well be right in following the reading of H, where quin is
absent. Thus parasti in Cic. 4 could be retained, as in the archetype. Fur-
thermore, the lack of the conjunction after dubium … esse seems to be
highly plausible. It is not likely that a subjunctivepararis as proposed by
Jordan (or a variant without contraction paraveris, proposed by the first
edition, and present, as can be seen in the collation results, in other manu-
scripts,10 and indeed accepted into the text by Reynolds in order to rein-
state the grammatical correspondence with quin) could have been trans-
formed in the manuscript into the contracted infinite parasti.
Cic. 4 L. Crassi Rawson] M. Crassi : Marci Crassi OMp

L. Crassi – Reynolds, Rawson
6 For example, res publica in the archetype always has the abbreviation r. p.
7 See below p. 33 and 40.
9 See p. 35 ff.
10 See manuscript L p. 74 f.
2.1 Archetype & 31
M. Crassi – , Kurfess
C. Marii – Glarean, Gruter, Vretska, Shackleton Bailey
Glarean proposed C. Marii in the place of the manuscript tradition,
which reads M. Crassi. This reading was accepted by Jachmann, Vretska,
and Shackleton Bailey as Cicero never belonged to the Crassus family.11
Cicero’s grandmother was aunt or sister to Marius Gratidianus’ grand-
mother. He in turn was the adopted son of Marius’ brother, whom Cicero
refers to as propinquus noster (Off. 3, 67). 12 Jachmann points out that
Cicero and Marius chose to avow their common brotherhood. Marius
was from the same region as Cicero (cf. homo Arpinas ) and his back-
ground was relatively humble (cf. contemnit simultatem hominum nobil-
ium). However , the above considerations seem somewhat irrelevant
because Marius does not seem to have been a role model for Cicero. The
actual manuscript reading M. Crassi refers to Marcus Licinius Crassus
(115/114 – 53 BC, consul 70 and 55, triumvir) from whom Cicero bought
back his own father’s old house in 62BC (Fam. 5, 6, 2). These economic
relations however would not explain any allusion to some kind of a kin-
ship relationship between Cicero and his counterpart, nor indeed would
this reading add an ironic tone to the invective. 13 Taking these consider-
ations into account, Rawson14 suggested the reading L. Crassi, and Rey-
nolds also accepted this reading into his text. Cicero’ s uncle V iselius
Aculio was one of Lucius Crassus’ best friends. Cicero and Lucius Cras-
sus were not related, but Lucius Crassus is mentioned seven times by
Cicero followed by the epithet sapientissimus. Lucius Crassus was in-
deed a role model for Cicero, and this reading suits the ironic context of
the invective.
11 Jordan 316 refers to Corrado for whom familia means kin or clan. Jordan dis-
agrees with Kurfess’ preferred translation of familia as sort or category in other
words the same kind of person asMarcus Crassus. See Jachmann 1950, 274–275;
SB 367.
12 Vretska 1961, II 40.
13 Marcus’ father, Publius Licinius Crassus, consul in 97, may be mentioned here.
Cf. He was widely appreciated as a military man and as a politician. He is re-
ferred to three times in the Sallustian invectives ( Cic. 2, Sall. 14, Sall. 20), on
each occasion as P. Crassus.
14 Rawson 1991, 223–226.
Cic. 4 removetur a vero ( Reitzenstein), amicitia … animi: movetur

ed. Ven.: removetur. aliud vero amicitia … animi : removetur [aliud
vero amicitia … animi] del. Jordan
Aliud ver o, which comes from the archetype, is hardly plausible and
so Reitzenstein replaced it witha vero. In this way removetur receives its
necessary object. A!liud" can be explained as an interpolation caused by
a mistake and related to the following sentence. 15 As amicitia tantum ac
virtus est animi sounds stylistically awkward, and as amicitia does not
suit the context, the elimination of the whole passage aliud … animi by
Jordan looks correct. The verb removetur needs an object and this would
seem to be the reason why the form in the f irst edition was altered to
movetur. The whole passage does not change much contextually, so Jor-
dan’s conjecture seems probable. Shackleton Bailey proposediustitia in-
stead of amicitia, translating the passage as “loves only justice and vir-
tue”.16 This passage might however imitate Sallust’ s famous abstract
sentences. This could be the intention either of the interpolator or of the
author of the invective.
Cic. 7 auctore WirzKurfessReynoldsShackletonBailey] iure !cum"17

Sall. 2 scio «] sciatis : atis del., o s.l. K
Sall. 3 de eo … obiectat del. Jordan
Jordan’s decision to eliminate de eo qui falsum crimen bonis obiectat
is correct. The passage beginning with de is not stylistically sound. Most
probably it was an explicative interlinear scholium, explaining “cal-
umniam ferre”. Cf. Cic. Fam. 8, 8, 1: … nihil quod magis gavisurum
te putem habeo quam hoc: scito C. Sempr onium Rufum … calumniam
maximo plausu tulisse . However, Shackleton Bailey decided to follow
the manuscript reading here, with qui instead of quod. The sense implied
then is: ‘if any of us brings a false char ge against the innocent, his own
conscience will convict him’.18
Sall. 3 illam] aliam : aliorum Mp: sed vitam aliam I

Sall. 3 velitari Lipsius] volutari rell.: voluptari K1HOV: volutari possit l
15 The suggestion of Vretska (II 41) ab iud!icio" looks paleographically plausible,

but his ar gumentation against Reitzenstein’ s variant is baseless and unneces-
sarily complicates the text.
16 SB 366–367.
17 See below p. 33.
18 SB 374–375.
2.1 Archetype & 33
Sall. 6 si del. Cortius

Sall. 13 patrem ] patremque rell.: et ad patrem Hb
Sall. 17 !et" idem
Sall. 21 idem] totidem
E: tantundem M: tantidem I: tantum HPO
Totidem, a senseless and grammatically incorrect interpolation, appeared
because of the numerals bis which follow further on in the text.
Sall. 22 petulantissime consectari FK] petulantissima consectari (con-
sert–BX) lingua rell.: petulantissime consectari bonos A: bonos petu-
lantissimis verbis consectari Hb: petulantissima sectari lingua I
lingua is considered by Kurfess to be an interpolation. The interpolation
was located supra lineam in the archetype as is revealed by the reading
of .19
Omission:
Cic. 3 lac. inter custodem et absque
Cic. 4 unam (Jachmann) om.20
Cic. 7 eum insequeris Hb] eum sequeris
Following on from quo auctore in the place of iure cum21 the word
insequeris is necessary, and we find the correct reading already in H b. It
might have occurred by chance in Hb as a dittography after eum.
Sall. 6 magistratibus !tam severus " aut … tam saevus (severus codd.)
Eussner
Eussner’s conjecture is mentioned in both Kurfess’ and Reynolds’ appar-
atus. It is not sufficiently plausible to be accepted into the text but it might
nonetheless be right. His conjecture is probably based on the omission
of an adjective after magistratibus. Thus, Eussner ’s reading is based on
a similar mistake to that which would have appeared in the archetype at
Cic. 1, where audiendo was replaced with the second dicendo. In the
same way here tam saevus (or any other adjective) could be replaced by
tam severus; in later manuscripts such a reduplication might be elimin-
ated through the omission of the first tam severus.
Sall. 11 in ERMMpV] om. rell.22
Sall. 15 despectui habuit Norden] despectus : despectum fecit I
19 See below p. 40.

20 Jachmann’s conjecture is not mentioned in Reynolds’ apparatus. It can easily be
explained palaeographically (omission after nobilium) and indeed improves the
passage to such an extent that it would seem to be correct.
21 See p. 32.
22 See below p. 75.
Sall. 17 a victore] victores T1

: victor KE: victore T2: auctore X: auc-
torem B: huic AFV23
Sall. 21 et om. (habent BX)
Dittography:
Cic. 1 audiendo «] dicendo
Mistakes:
Cic. 3 tusculanam EM] –um rell.24
Cic. 6 interfuerit V] interfuit
Cic. 7 ancillaris E] –es rell.: ancilares R
Sall. 1 oratio V«] ratio
Sall. 1 consequetur A1N] –atur rell.
Sall. 1 suscensere FTD] succ– rell.: succurrere Q: succendere V
Sall. 1 debetis K2M2] debeatis
Sall. 2 debetis K] debebitis rell.: debitis Q
Sall. 3 illam] aliam
Sall. 4 fuerit] fuerint
Sall. 5 vita ed. princ.] vitae : om. K1
Sall. 5 per te] certe
Sall. 8 rudimenta AQHb] erudimenta rell.
Sall. 12 vatinio Hb] vatino
Sall. 12 reprehendetur «] –atur : reprehendantur B: reprehenditur
QHbMp
Sall. 12 disserendum M] discernendum rell.
Sall. 13 qui IM2] si rell.
Sall. 13 intellegetur T
S] –itur rell.: intelligetur LIV : intelligitur
REQHbMpM
Sall. 15 viris recte VK 2] vestris : uris R: nostris Mp: om. Q: vestris,
corr. vobis I2
Sall. 16 ecquod GlareanLugdGrut] et quod AF : et pro K1, et quid VK2
Sall. 16 dilectum BX
] delectum rell.
Sall. 17 per] post
Sall. 18 quo A2] quod T: quae K2: qua BX
Sall. 18 tamquam X] tanquam BHb: tantam rell.
Sall. 18 chilonum] cilonum ISM: cylonum AF
LEHO: cylonium K:
ciclonum QHb: cillonum MpV: cynonum N
23 See below p. 42 and 53.

24 See p. 82 and 86.
2.2 Families and 35
Sall. 18 homines Ald2] nominis : nominis in mg. V

Sall. 19 nonne «] non : quid Q: quin Hb: non enim P: del. K2
Sall. 19 reluere «] relinire : relinquere I
Sall. 19 Tiburtem Cortius] tiburti
Sall. 20 eius] vetus
Sall. 20 comesto] comeso AFXCEPMp, in ras. D: commeso KTB: com-
messo MO: commisso H: comesso IV
Sall. 21 parat. Is Jordan: paratus est. is iam SLV: parat EPMp: paratus

Hb
Sall. 16 aperte ABXEM] apte rell.25
Division in the text transmission:

Cic. 6 etiamne 2 Zed. ven. ] etiam in
H: etiam im- O: etiam
NERMMpV1: et tam I
It seems obvious that –ne was abbreviated in the archetype . The con-
tamination of the family with the hyparchetype
and manuscripts H
and O may be the result of an interlinear interpolation or an explanation
in (a comment in the mar gin to molestissimis verbis ); it could also
however be a simple dittography before or after m.
Sall. 4 his Schmidt] hos Mp: hi N: hii MV: om. E: quos s. l. K2
Schmidt’s conjecture provides commendavit with a necessary object in
the dative. hos in occurred by analogy with the following quos. The
omission of s from hi in the family can be explained by the position of
commendavit in the sentence. The scribe neither connected it with the
pronoun nor put the pronoun in the dative,commendavit being too distant.
Sall. 18 debitorum «] dedit– : ledit–

I
The archetype probably read deditorum.
2.2 Families and
The text, as transmitted by the medieval tradition, is divided in two

branches (families and ), and the latter ( ) is much lar ger that the
former (). Eight manuscripts belong to family, fifteen – to . The divi-
sion of different manuscripts into hyparchetypes in family is more or
less clear, as all the manuscripts, give or take a few inaccuracies, with the
25 See below p. 38, 82 f. and 97 for examples of a correct reading in and EM.
exception of B, X and N, transmit the text correctly . The interaction of

manuscripts in family is less clear, partly due to contamination, partly
because of arbitrary alteration to the text in some manuscripts.
2.2.1 Family (AFK+ N, T GBX)
The main defining features of family are the omission of whole words.
Thus the extensive omission of a number of words in Sall. 11 is remark-
able. The omission was however present in the manuscript as a marginal
or interlinear scholium. In Sall. 15 the second variant of secutus to adep-
tus was probably originally written supra lineam. The interpolation of the
predicate est can be explained by the damage to the word despectus.26 In
Sall. 17 and Sall. 20 we are in all likelihood dealing with a varia lectio
written supra lineam.
Omission:
Cic. 1 et sceleratissimo] om. R: et celeratissimo E: et sceratissimo O 27
Sall. 5 ego ] om.
Sall. 6 tuenda re p. N
Mp] tuendam r.p. Hb: r. p.
Sall. 7 armatos N] om. MMp
Sall. 9 invasisti om. : evasisti Mp
Sall. 9 vero om. : enim M
Sall. 11 neque hercules … aestimavi om. T: habet N: marg. add. K2
This sentence, omitted because of haplography (the previous sentence
ends with aestimaverunt), had to be included in the text both in and in
, either supra lineam or in margine. The manuscripts of and T repro-
duce the text of the archetype , ignoring this variant, while B and X in-
clude it in the text.
Sall. 12 ego om. E
Sall. 13 enim om.
Sall. 14 turpissime om. , habet N
Sall. 16 umquam N
] om. : usquam : usque Q: numquam E: unquam
IPMp
26 On despectui habuit see above p. 33. On Cic. 6 see above p 35. On Sall. 22 see
above p. 33 and below p. 40.
27 See below p. 82.
2.2 Families and 37
Transposition:
Cic. 2, 3 haec cum ] cum haec Hb: haec om., s. l. R28
Cic. 2, 3 se cicero ] cicero se : se cicero dicit I
Sall. 10 omniaque quae K 2
RV] omnia quaeque NF : omniamquam-
que K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae A29
Sall. 10 ipsa r. p. C? EP] ipsa p. r. DK HMR: ipsa p. et F: ipso p. r. A:
ipsam r. p. V: ipsa populi romani NIMp
Transposition in conjunction with omission:

Sall. 17 nihil in eo non BX ] nihil non in eo FK: non in eo nihil ANV :
nihil non in eo non T
In all probability, in eo, which fell out of archetype , was written supra
lineam in the text.In eo is found in the right place in archetype, while in
it is transposed after non. As a result we f ind the reduplication nihil
non, which led to the transposition of nihil in manuscripts A and N. In
hyparchetype however it led to the transposition of non, which corre-
sponds to the correct reading of archetype (as in manuscripts B and X).
In any case, in f non had to be present in the text, and afterwards was
eliminated after eo. The manuscript T through an oversight retained both
non.
Interpolation:
Cic. 6 etiamne 2 Zed. ven. ] etiam in 30
ERMMpV: et tam I
Cic. 7 quem2 ] et quem AFN
: et K
Et quem was present in archetype . Only K omitted quem.
Sall. 3 qui K2] quia FK1: quod A : quae O

Quod served as an explanation in archetype (and in as a variant); this
explanation was included into the text in manuscript A and hyparche-
type .
Sall. 15 adeptus] adeptus !secutus est" (est om. T) V: adeptus sequitus
est Mp
28 See below p. 79.

29 See below p. 41.
30 See above p. 35.
Mistakes:
Cic. 1 iudicia] audacia : ac iudicia N31
Sall. 8 ducis AN
] dicis FK1 EOMp
Sall. 12 egregii] egregiae F1K Mp
Sall. 14 non queat ] nequeat P: non querat V
Sall. 20 fuerat N] fuerit (nisi fuit A)
Sall. 20 tui N] tibi HbAF : tibi vel tui K
In all probablity the correct reading tui was marked as a varia lectio vel
tui in archetype and supra lineam in . Thus in manuscript K it appears
in the text next to tibi. In manuscript Hb it is a mistake.
2.2.2 Family (CD+I, S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM)
Archetype is characterised for the most part by certain important inter-

polations. There are also two simple transpositions.Sall. 7; Sall. 10; Sall.
13; Sall. 17 as well as the correct readings in the manuscripts EM
or in EM, discussed below ,32 clearly show that archetype included
numerous variants in the text.
Transposition:
Cic. 2 tua ac (aut BX) dicta I] ac (an E) dicta tua: facta tua ac dicta tua
N
Cic. 4 dubium potest esse ] potest dubium esse : potest esse dubium I
Interpolation:
Cic. 4 et O] ac : om. V33
The correct reading of O is a consequence of an accidental “correct”
interpretation of the abbreviation, which in other manuscripts of family
was read as ac.
Sall. 4 illis ] illis viris IncAldLugdBasGrutRom
Sall. 6 vixissent] venissent CDH1PMp
Sall. 7 fortunatam Mp] fortunatam natam F 2
ERVAld in mar g.,
LugdBasVen: fortunam natam L: fortunam H1, corr. H2
Sall. 8 querar] loquar IQHbO: s. l. et loquar H2P2: loquar querar Mp
31 On the contamination of N see below p. 44 f.

32 See below p. 82 ff. and 97 ff.
33 et seems to be preferable for acoustic reasons; ac probably was an interpolation
after et which fell out of the text (after sanguine).
2.2 Families and 39
Loquar had to be written supra lineam or in mar gine in archetype . In

this way it is possible to explain the fact that some manuscripts stem-
ming from various hyparchetypes include it in the text, whereas others
ignore it.
Sall. 13 quaestus EMH1Mp] quaestus sumptus R

: quaestuosus sump-
tus H b: quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaestiosius sumptus Q: quaestus
idem sumptus OH 2P: quaestus stipendia sumptus I: ad sumptus add.
sed postea del. V
The reading of hyparchetype , or alternatively only some manuscripts of
hyparchetype , coincides with the correct reading of family in Sall. 7
and Sall. 13. This could be explained by the suggestion that the reading of
family was included in the text as a variant in family and accordingly,
hyparchetypes and . Manuscripts E and M included the correct reading
in the text (sumptus was written as a supra lineam explanation). Hyparch-
type omitted this explanation, while
and included it in the text.34
Sall. 17 vexavit E] vixit A2

: vetuit BX: vetavit T
Archetype probably included the corrected variant vixit following on
from –av–, which fell out of the text. The correct reading in E shows
that it was present as a variant in archetype, and also in and . (On the
hyparchetype see below).
Sall. 18 erat ] erat exemplar 35
Omission:
Sall. 20 sis om. : recte Mp36
Mistakes:
Sall. 4 his] hos Mp: hi : hii MV: om. E: quos s. l. K2 37
Sall. 7 neque ] ne quid
M: nec quid ERHP: numquid : nunquid LI:
necque O: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp
Sall. 8 ullum ERMMp] illum
HO38
Sall. 19 exspectaverint TI] –averunt BX: –avarint : –arent P
34 See below p. 58, 67, 81, 96 104, 109.

35 Exemplar, used with the genitive eius partis, simplifies the general syntax of the
phrase.
36 On the contamination of the manuscript Mp see below p. 110.
37 See p. 35, 44, 83, 94, 99, 110.
38 The same reading in ERMMp and could occur by chance. However , taking
into consideration Sall. 13, the variant present in archetype can be posited.
2.3 Hyparchetypes of the family (AFK+N, T GBX)
2.3.1 Hyparchetype (AFK+N)
Four manuscripts belong to hyparchetype . This hyparchetype was

established by Reynolds in his edition of Sallust and in TT,39 where he
indicated manuscripts A, F and K. A later manuscript N should be added
to the group.40
Among the fundamental errors of hyparchetype are a number of
transpositions, but there are several interpolations also.
On two occasions hyparchetype contains the correct reading in contrast

to the rest of the tradition:
Cic. 4 amicitia T2] –iae : om. I
It is probable that amicitiae was written in the archetype. This read-
ing is not however relevant and it would seem to be based on a mistake.

sert– BX) lingua rell.:41 petulantissime consectari bonos A: bonos
petulantissimis verbis consectari H b: petulantissima sectari lingua I
Here there are no reasons for mechanical omission of the interpolated
lingua in Sall. 22. Its absence in the reading of suggests that both in
and, originally, in the word lingua was not included in the text, but in
the margin or between the lines.
Omission:
Cic. 1 hoc om. , habet N
Sall. 18 in om. TDMp: in m., in c., in I. t. B
Interpolation:
Cic. 4 aedificaveris] exaedificaveris p
Cic. 7 quem 2 ] et quem AFN
CV: et K (this interpolation is relevant
for )
Sall. 1 actibus] actibus nostris A1FK2N
Sall. 9 ego] mihi FK1: del. K2, om. A
39 TT 350–351.
41 See above on the interpolation of archetype p. 33.
2.3 Hyparchetypes of the family (AFK+N, T GBX) 41
It would seem that in mihi was written instead of ego. This word was
then omitted in A.
Transposition:
Cic. 5 consule fortunatam] fortunatam consule (–ulere K1)
Sall. 5 noli mihi] mihi noli : mihi om. I
Sall. 10 omniaque quae K2
SHbRV] omnia quaeque NF : omniamquam-
que K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae A (this transposition is relevant
for )
Sall. 12 mearum actionum] actionum mearum E: actionum om. M
Sall. 13 ut ad te] ad te ut FK: ad te ANH
bMp (this transposition is relevant
for manuscripts of )
Mistakes:
Sall. 5 praeluxi] proluxi AFK
Sall. 9 rabie] rabies AFKMp
Sall. 9 qui] quae AFK1: quod K2M: om. P
Sall. 17 ac] ad A1FK1: aut N
Sall. 20 comesto] comeso NAFXC EPMp, in ras. D: commeso KTB:
commesso MO: commisso H: comesso IV
Among the manuscripts belonging to group , manuscript K, 42 written

in the 2 nd half of 1 1th century in Cologne, is particularly important. In
a number of readings it is strikingly dif ferent compared to other manu-
scripts of :
Cic. 1 ubiubi] ubi K 1HbV1«BasGrutRomVenSB (sed ubi 2 s. l. K2V2, del.
M) est add. Reynolds
: et K
Sall. 1 actibus] actibus nostris A1FNK2
Sall. 2 debetis K] debebitis rell.
These three readings seem to be omissions of K.
42 London, British Library , Harl. 2682, 2 nd half 1 1th cent. (Cologne); parchment,
347x250 (263x195), 192ff. (36 lines). A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts
in the British Museum, vol. II (London 1808), 707; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des
Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 21 1 ff. K –
Reynolds; Ha – TT 351; Kurfess; h – Clark, in cat., marc., ligar., deiot., philipp.;
H – Clark, marc., ligar., deiot., de imp., pro mil. ff. 113r–114v.
Sall. 17 a victore] victores NT1

Mp: victor KE: victore T2: auctore X:
huic AFV
Sall. 20 tui N] tibi AF Hb: tibi vel tui K
These examples show K’ s individuality. It is the only manuscript that
reproduces the reading of hyparchetype . A and F include the reading
tibi in the text, while N correctly reads tui.
Both manuscripts A43 and F44 were written either at the end of the 10
th cen-
tury or early on in the 1 1th century, F supposedly in Germany , A – in

South-Western Germany . N, 45 published here for the f irst time, was
written later, in the 13th century, and is more complicated.46
It is worth noting that only groups AF and FK include the same
errors, something that is not the case for AK. As far as N is concerned, it
definitely belongs to the same hyparchetype. It cannot however be con-
sidered as belonging to any group, sharing common readings sometimes
with one manuscript and at other times with another.
Sall. 3 qui K2] quia FK1: quod AN : quae O
que K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae A
Sall. 13 ut ad te] ad te ut FK: ad te ANHbMp
Sall. 17 nihil in eo non XB] nihil non in eo NFK: non in eo nihil A: nihil
non in eo non T47
Sall. 22 aperte ANXBEM] apte rell.
43 Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Gud. lat. 335 (4642), 10 th –11th cent.
(South-Western Germany); parchment, 140x1 15, 85 ff.; Die Handschriften der
Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel beschr. v. O. v. Heinemann, Vierte Abt.:
Die Gudischen Handschriften, Bd. IX (W olfenbüttel 1913), 251ff.; B.Munk Olsen,
L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 316.
A – Reynolds; Kurfess; TT 351; g – Clark, marc., ligar., deiot. ff. 43r–54r.
44 Firenze, Bibliotheca Laurentiana, Laur . 50.45, 10 th –11th cent. (Germany?);
parchment, 325x245, 120ff.; Catalogus codicum latinorum bibliothecae Lauren-
tianae, t.1 (Firenze 1774), 523f.; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques
latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 177. F – Reynolds; TT 351; x –
Clark, in cat. ff. 106v–108v.
45 London, British Library, Add. 21 242, 13th cent.; parchment, 217x141 (175x96),
49 ff. (32 lines); Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Mu-
seum 1854–1860 (London 1965, 11875), 346. ff. 37v–41r.
47 See above p. 37.
Only once, at a point where F includes a simple error , with the abbrevi-
ation for r!e" rendered as et, do manuscripts A, K and N stand closer to
each other than usual:
ipsa populi romani NIMp: ipsam r. p. V
The division between the four manuscripts is due to the dif ferent inter-
pretation of variants in hyparchetype, something that is clear from what
follows, where K includes both readings in the text:
Sall. 20 tui N] tibi AF Hb: tibi vel tui K
Almost all the common errors of manuscripts A, F and N are based on
the interpolation. In K various readings were retained in textu, probably
intentionally, while A, F and N include a variant written supra lineam or
in the margin.
The common readings F and K can be explained by the fact that A
and N included ever more variants in their texts. The readings AN against
FK only twice offer the right text (Sall. 12 and Sall. 22). In other places
the reading of A is closer to the correct text than the readings of FK.
Other correct readings of A are not signif icant and occur simply by
chance:
Sall. 1 consequetur A1N] –atur rell.
Sall. 8 ducis AK2
] dicis FK1 EOMp
Sall. 8 rudimenta AQHb] erud– rell.
In manuscript A there are some individual interpolations:

Cic. 1 iudicia rem publicam] r. p. audacia A: iudiciaque p. r. H b: iudicia
p. r. R: iuditiaque rei p. V
Sall. 8 homo] homo levissimus A
Sall. 9 te opinor] te ut opinor A: ut opinor te I: te opinio Hb«
Sall. 14 ita non est facile] ita difficile est A: non facile est R
Sall. 22 velle] malle A
An extensive omission in A should be pointed out:

Sall. 14 neque–paterna domo om. A
An individual interpolation in K is relevant:

Sall. 16 ecquod GlareanLugdGrut] et quod AFN : et pro K 1, et quid
VK2: qui post et quod B
The manuscript N has some contaminated readings. In all probability , the

scribe used several manuscripts and among them those of hyparchetype
were clearly important. There are also some common readings with
family :
Cic. 1 iudicia ] audacia : ac iudicia N
This is a palaeographical error . In this way the scribe (or his source)
wanted to explain why in the manuscripts of family the word iudicia
was read wrongly. He may have thought that ac iudicia became audacia.
Doubtless, he had access to manuscripts of family , which he used in
this place.
Cic. 2 tua ac (aut BX) dicta I ] ac (an E) dicta tua : facta tua ac dicta
tua N
This provides further evidence of the scribe’ s access to several manu-
scripts of both families, and . He combines the variants of and .
Cic. 2 res sit TG

] res sit p. B: res p. sit N: sit res p. XSHPOVMp: sit
r. p. QLHbEMRZ
Cic. 2 p. crassi viri clarissimi fuit]48 p. crassi v. c. fuit AKTGD: p. crassi
ut c. fuit B: p. crassi viri consularis fuit NQLHbMpAldLugdBasGrut-
RomCrisp: publii c. v. c. fuit E: publii c. v . fuit R: publii crassi viri
consularis fuit ZO: publii c. vir con- fuit H2: publii c. viri fuit P: pub-
lii c. fuit viri clarissimi M: viri clarissimi om. I
The resprective scribes of manuscript N and manuscript F read the ab-
breviation v. c . (as it appeared in the archetype) dif ferently. N followed
the manuscripts of family , while F read the abbreviation correctly.
Cic. 6 etiamne 2 Z ed. ven. ] etiam in

NRMpEMV1: et tam I
Cic. 6 molestissimis] immodestissimis I: molestis N
Sall. 4 his] hos Mp: hi N: hii MV: om. E: quos s. l. K2
Mp] tuendam r. p. Hb: r. p.
Sall. 8 ullum ERMPMp] illum N
HO
Sall. 9 vero te] vero om. : enim te M: te vero N
Sall. 11 neque hercules … aestimavi om. T, habet N: marg. add. K2
Sall. 12 sesti] festi AV: sexti E: sestii NBIHb: resti R
Sall. 14 turpissime om. , habet N
48 See below p. 60 f., 66 ff.

Sall. 16 umquam N
] usquam : usque Q: numquam E: unquam IPMp:
om.
Sall. 17 qui] quos N
Sall. 19 rerum novarum] novarum rerum NHM
Sall. 20 fuerat N] fuerit FK : fuit A
E: tantidem I: tantundem M: tantum NHPO
Sall. 21 quod KXMp] quot AFT
E: quam I: quantum N
Sall. 21 decet] debet NILHb
sert– BX) lingua rell.: petulantissime consectari bonos A: bonos
As evident from the above list, the scribe of N used mainly manuscripts
of hyparchetypes
and . Sometimes he includes readings from the
manuscripts of .
At one point N has a correct reading, as does the manuscript Hb, whereas
the rest of the tradition does not:
Sall. 12 vatinio NHb«] vatino : vectivo V
There are also conjectures in the manuscript:

Cic. 1 venales habeat] venales habebat N: habeat venales Z
Cic. 5 eam] illam N: om. : civium «: ea V
Cic. 5 libertate] libidine N
Cic. 6 te] ne T1, corr. T2: om. Mp: se N
Sall. 3 istius] ipsius E: illius N
Sall. 6 ac] aut N49
Sall. 9 eorum] illorum N
Sall. 17 ac] ad A1FK1 ad s. l. c K: ad s. l. ac V: aut N50
Sall. 20 quisquam] quispiam NM: om. IHb
Sall. 20 ac] sive N51
Interpolation:
Cic. 7 nunc post eorum N, s. l. V
Sall. 6 cuius primos ordines] cuius me primos ordines N: cuius me prin-
cipem primos dies ordines, postea corr. Q
49 Cf. Sall. 17 (ac] ad A1FK1 ad s. l. c K: ads. l. ac V: aut N) andSall. 20 (ac] sive N).
50 Cf. Sall. 6 and Sall. 20.
51 Cf. Sall. 6 and Sall. 17.
Sall. 7 historiis] istoriis B: in historiis NVI«Reynolds: historiae s. l. is Hb

The manuscript N apparently interpreted the abbreviation of hyparche-
type p. r. as populi romani.
Omission:
Cic. 2 itaque] ita N
Cic. 5 atque] at qui B: at N
Sall. 1 dicendi] om. N: dicendo Q: in dicendo Hb
Sall. 1 de om. N
Sall. 9 abstinuerunt quam tu vir a viris om. N: s. l., in mar g. iter. H1,
postea del. H2
Sall. 10 suum annum] annum om. N: animum suum R: suum amicum Q:
suo aio Hb
Sall. 10 vos om. N
Sall. 14 corporis om. N
Sall. 15 egeris – volueris om. N
Sall. 19 contrudi] trudi N
Sall. 20 quem ne] qui me E: ne om. N
Sall. 21 c.] gai K: crispe O: om. N
Transposition in N:
Cic. 1 rem publicam] r. p. : rei p. P: p. r. NLAldLugdBasGrutRomCrisp
This reading occurred by chance rather than being corrected against the
run of the rest of the textual tradition.
Cic. 3 gloriam suam] suam gloriam N
Cic. 4 sanguine et miseriis civium] sanguine civium ac miseriis ZN (here
the scribe is also engaged in conjecture)
Cic. 6 oblivisci his K 2CH2MZIMp] his oblivisci N: oblivisci piis :
oblivisci is O
Cic. 7 umeris suis] suis humeris N
Sall. 1 aut si] si aut NA2 HbZ: aut om. VMp
Sall. 1 vitium incidam procacitatis] incidam procacitatis vitium N
Sall. 10 reliqua vita] vita reliqua N
Sall. 11 volui quicquam] quicquam volui M: volui ante quicquam om.,
post vobis suppl. N
Sall. 14 sodalicium sacrilegi] sacrilegi sodalicium N
Sall. 14 bis iudicis ad subsellia] bis ad subsellia iudicis I: bis ad subsellia
iudiciis N
Sall. 15 sordidissimo homini] homini sordidissimo N

Sall. 16 est quisque] et quisque E: est quisque est Q: quisque est NHb
Sall. 18 similitudine vitae se] vitae similitudine se B: se similitudine
vitae N: se similitudine, vitae om. I
The scribe of manuscript N wrote his text, interpreting it as he went

along. There are some mistakes, which can be regarded as conjectures.
Mistakes:
Cic. 1 diripi] ab eo diripi Mp: deripi N
Cic. 1 accitus] accito N
This reading was inferred by analogy with paulo, which follows.
Cic. 2 putares] patares N
debitata LP1O: delibitata P2
Cic. 3 concilio] consilio NQV
Cic. 3 compertum] comperto N
Cic. 4 hominum] omnium N
Cic. 5 supplex] duplex N
Cic. 7 dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp:
dyrachio L: dyrracio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO
Cic. 7 vatini] vanii N: vatinii Hb
Cic. 7 causam] causas N
Sall. 1 ac parem] atque parem I: om. E: aut parem N
Sall. 2 mentitum esse videatur] mentitus esse videar«QHbVK2: mentitum
esse videar Mp: m. e. videantur, n del. N
Sall. 2 respondendo] respondebo N
Sall. 2 aucdituros, c del. N
Sall. 4 maiores] mores N: maiorum Hb
Sall. 4 turpitudinis] turpitu O: turpidinis N
Sall. 5 satius est enim] satis est enim NQ: sanctius etenim est :Vsacrus?.. R
Sall. 5 posteris] in posteris K1 (in del. K2): poposteris N
Sall. 5 conferri decet] conferre debet R: conferre decet NZ
Sall. 6 r. p.] r. r. N
Sall. 9 non] nam N
Sall. 10 perbacchatus] perbachatus BIQHM: debachatus N
Sall. 10 aestimaverunt] existimaverunt QHbMp: estimarent N: extimave-
runt V
Sall. 11 hercules K2
E] hercule BXPMpV: ercule M: hercle HR: hercul N
Sall. 11 vos] vobis N
This error was inferred by analogy with the previousvobis, which occurs
in the same sentence.
Sall. 12 insolentiam] insolempniam N

Sall. 12 hae] haec Mp: c eras. KHbE: ne NO
Sall. 13 tempore] tui N
Sall. 13 tui] cui N
Sall. 13 sed sed qualem N
S] –itur rell.: intelligetur NLIV : intelligitur
REQHbMpM
Sall. 15 nobis] vobis N
LEHPO: cylonium K:
Sall. 19 ne causam] nec causam KEO: ne causas N
Sall. 20 neque piguit] que piguit om. O: pinguit N
Sall. 20 villae] millae N1
Sall. 20 hercules] hercle KMp: hercules A es in ras.: hercule NLV
Sall. 22 offendere] offenfi N
Sall. 22 sallustius] abistius N: salustius tuus O
Sall. 22 ego honeste] honeste ego KEHb: ego honestius N: ego om. G
Manuscript K includes thorough corrections by a second hand. Some

readings are influenced by the other manuscripts of hyparchetype :
Sall. 1 actibus] actibus nostris A1FK2N
The scribe also used correct readings from family.52 In some places
K2 offers a correct reading:
52 Cic. 5 consule fortunatam] fortunatam consule (–ulere K1)

Cic. 6 his NK2CZIH2MMp: iis AF D1: hiis K1D2: piis : is O: om. ERH1
Sall. 8 ducis AK2
] dicis FK1 EOMp
SHbRV] omnia quaeque NF : omniamquamque K1:
omnia quaque I: omnia quae A
Sall. 11 neque hercules … aestimavi om. T, marg. add. K2
E] hercule BXPMpV: ercule M: hercle RH: hercul N
Sall. 14 hercules
E] hercule F2V: mehercules K2: hercle Mp: herculis pedesR
Sall. 16 ecquod GlareanLugdBat] et quod AFN : et pro K 1, et quid K 2V: qui
post et quod B
Sall. 6, 16 aut dictum I?K2] auditum NFK1T1
: et dictum L: auditu AT2XB
Sall. 1 debetis K2M2] debeatis

Sall. 15 viris VK2] vestris : uris R: nostris Mp:om. QBasGrut: vestris I1,
corr. vobis I2
This reading probably did not occur by chance. It could be a conscious
conjecture.
2.3.2 Hyparchetype (T GBX)
Hyparchetype is mentioned by Reynolds f irst in TT,53 and then in his

edition of Sallust. InTT Reynolds mentions three manuscripts of the hyp-
archetype: T, G and B. Manuscript X was found by Reynolds later and
first mentioned in his edition of Sallust in 1991. He did not however use
all four manuscripts in this edition, but only two of them – T and X.
Hyparchetype is not the oldest one. Its oldest manuscript G was
written around 11th –12th cent. The hyparchetype would seem to be from
Southern Germany, Austria or Northern Italy.
Hyparchetype shows few individual errors. Its main def ining fea-
tures are two transpositions and an interpolation. There are some irrel-
evant mistakes.
Transposition:
Sall. 1 mea vita] vita mea
Interpolation:
Cic. 3 aut1] autem M
Mistakes:
Cic. 7 male dicis Tpc et rell.] maledictis A2 : malidicis M
: vetuit XBG?54: vetavit T
Sall. 16 posset
] possit K2: possis HbV1: possim V2
Sall. 17 ac] ad A1FK1: ad s. l. c K2: ad s. l. ac V: aut N
Sall. 18 quo A2] quod T: qui K2: qua XB
Sall. 19 somnio AFK2TC2D] somno K1XEHBP: sonnio NI: sono MMp: sonno
O: somnium C1: sompno V
53 TT 350–352.
54 Manuscript G was collated from a photocopy of the original, and the reading is
unclear at this point.
Sall. 18 in fretis] infreti : infrae s. l. fretis E: insertis V

Sall. 19 sint] sunt O
Sall. 19 exspectaverint TI] –arint : –arent P: –averunt XB
Within the hyparchtype a sub-group, gemelli B and G, is evident. The

manuscript B55 was written in the 12th century in a Benedictine Abbey in
Southern Bavaria, while the manuscript G56 was written on the boundary
between the 11th and 12th centuries in Northern Italy. Each has individual
readings but often they reveal errors common to hyparchetype . It is
also worth noting that common errors within BG occur only in the invec-
tive against Cicero.
Omission:
Cic. 1 viri om. BG
Cic. 5 tu om. BGHb
Cic. 7 parte om. BG
Transposition:
Cic. 4 si tibi] sit A: tibi si BG
Cic. 5 audet dicere] dicere audeat BG
It is worth noting the error audeat, which is used instead of audet. This
probably occurred by analogy with the previous subjunctive sit.
This individual interpolation is relevant because it could be aconjecture:

Cic. 4 litibus] laudibus BG
Mistakes:
Cic. 3 oppugnatum d. t. T : obpugnatum BGZEH: oppugnatum oppug,
postea corr. Q
55 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 461 1 (1236), 12 th cent. (Benedict-

beuern); parchment, 213x156, 198ff. (f. 1 and 198 later bound, content on f. 2);
Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, t. I, p. II (Mü-
nchen 1894), 216; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe
et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 228f. B – Kurfess, TT 63, 351; b – Clark, in cat.
ff. 192v–197v.
56 Vatican, Bibliotheca V aticana, Vat. lat. 3251, 1 1th –12th cent. (Northern Italy);
parchment, 350x230, III+178 +1 ff. M. Passalaqua, I codici di Prisciano (Rom
1978), 341 f.; B. Munk Olsen, L ’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et
XIIe siècles, t. 2 (Paris 1985), 788 f. G – TT 351; ff. 37r–39v.
Cic. 4 acceperis] acceperas BG

Cic. 5 patronus] patronis BG
Cic. 6 quidlibet] quodlibet BGHbBasGrutRom
The manuscripts of hyparchetype contain a number of individual read-

ings. Manuscript B has some striking individual readings. These are
mainly interpolations and omissions.
Omission:
Cic. 3 te om. B
Cic. 5 tu om. ABE: tui, i del. V1
Cic. 5 revocaveras] revocaras B
Cic. 6 quod om. B
Cic. 6 confeceris] feceris B: confeceris om. K1: perfeceris Hb
Cic. 6 atque om. B
Cic. 7 appellabas] appellas BV
Cic. 7 odisti ei maxime om. B
Cic. 7 in hac neque om. B
Sall. 2 et om. BO
Sall. 3 itaque] ita B
Sall. 4 quoniam] quo B
Sall. 5 initium et virtutis om. B
Sall. 7 et om. BE: del. T
Sall. 8 incunabula] cunabula BV
Sall. 10 in om. B
Sall. 15 a om. B
Sall. 19 aut om. B
Sall. 20 P. om. BIHb: publii OMp
Interpolation:
Cic. 7 redisti] cecidisti B: redidisti Q: redires Hb
Sall. 1 non] non in B: om. QHb
Sall. 1 praevertam] praevertamur B: praevio V: vertam AldLugdBasVen-
Rom
Sall. 1 sumam] summam KN: sumamus B
Sall. 5 noti] menti B
Sall. 5 accipiant] incipiant BHbO: incipiunt Q
Sall. 5 me – quam] mihi meis nobilitatis quam B: me om. Q
Sall. 7 pace] in pace B: pace om. E
Sall. 7 illud] aliud B: illut O
Sall. 15 omnibus] hominibus B

Sall. 15 ut libet] ut lubet et B
Sall. 15 noli] noli esse B
Sall. 16 ecquod Glarean] et quod AFN : et pro K 1, et quid VK 2: qui
post et quod B
Sall. 18 municipiis coloniis Italia tota] in m., in c., in I. t. B
Sall. 20 quidem] quod est B
Sall. 21 in aetate] in prima aetate B: in ea etate O
Sall. 22 ratio] est ratio B
Transposition:
Sall. 7 te tui] tui te BI
Sall. 18 similitudine vitae se] vitae similitudine se B: se similitudine NI,
vitae om. I
Some of the changes, which resulted in mistakes, seem to have been

made consciously:
Cic. 2 minime] enim me B: non Hb: om. QL
Cic. 2 periuriis] periurans B: pervariis M
Cic. 3 habebat] habeat BP1: habuit Z
Cic. 4 quid] quod B: quantum O
Cic. 4 miseriis] miserias B: miserorum V
Cic. 4 habet] habeo B
Cic. 5 atque] at qui B: at N
Cic. 7 quid] quod B
Sall. 1 quod] quae B: illud V
Sall. 2 habere] habet B
Sall. 3 vero] g? BE: quidem R
The scribe of manuscript B might have wrongly interpreted the abbrevia-
tion for vero here.57
Sall. 4 quam] quamquam B
Sall. 4 nonnullos] non nullus B: nonne illos Hb
Sall. 6 quod] qui B
Sall. 7 quod] qui B: quodquod Q: quo E
Sall. 7 tu] te BMp
Sall. 8 an ullum] ahilla B
Sall. 9 satis es] satis est B: es satis AQLHb
57 See Cappelli 1954, 124, 388.

Sall. 12 quid] quod PB

Sall. 13 patienda] patientia N1: facienda BO
Sall. 14 exputare] expectare AE: et putare B: disputare Hb: putare R
Sall. 14 K (caput) post domo habent AFK1T
: R (rubrica) habet B
Sall. 17 at] ad B: ut V
auctorem B: huic AFV
Sall. 18 illo grege] illorum grege B: illo gregi M
Sall. 19 provinciam] pronuntiam B
Sall. 19 c.] g. BE: gaii OMp
Sall. 21 dicere] edicere B
Sall. 21 potest] post B: pote, corr. A1
Sall. 22 potes] potens B: ex potest H1
Manuscript T 58 was written in the 1 1th century in Southern Germany . It

includes a correct reading in one place in contrast to the rest of the manu-
script tradition. In all probability this occurred by chance. Some other er-
rors in T common to manuscripts of family and manuscripts of hyp-
archetype also occurred by chance.
Correct reading:
The reading of T, first selected in Aldinae and subsequently preferred by
most old and new editions could be both a mistake and a conjecture of .TIn
any case, “stained, blemished by the vices” as a description of Cicero’ s
wife fits better into the context than “weakened by her vices”.
These correct readings, common to manuscripts of family and hyp-

archetype , seem to have occurred by chance:
REQHbMpM
58 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19472 (1978), 1 1th cent. (T egern-

see); parchment, 202x132 (140x80, then 150x80), 145ff., 21 lines, by the end 26
lines. Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, t. II, p. I
(München 1874), 248; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux
XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 237. T – Reynolds; Kurfess; TT 63, 351; t –
Clark, in cat. ff. 1v–10v.

Sall. 19 somnio AFK 2TC2D] somno K 1XEHBP: sonnio NI: sonno O:
sono MMp: somnium C1: sompno V
Transposition:
Cic. 3 domum tuam oppugnatum] oppugnatum domum tuam T
Cic. 7 plura de tua insolentia] de tua insolentia plura T
Omission:
Sall. 7 tantum – pudicitia om. T
Sall. 11 neque hercules … aestimavi om. T, habet N: marg. add. K2
Manuscript T again has an error common to manuscripts of hyparche-
type .
Sall. 18 in] om. TDMp
An error, common to manuscripts of family or manuscripts of hyp-

archetype :
Sall. 18 quo A2] quod T: qui K2: qua XB
Manuscript X59 was written in the 2 nd half of the 12 th century in Austria.

This includes a number of readings in common with manuscript B. These
readings emphasize the individuality of T . Thus, on several occasions,
manuscripts X and B include correct common readings in contrast to
other manuscripts of hyparchetype :
Sall. 16 dilectum XB
] de– rell.: deletum I1
Sall. 18 tamquam X] tanquam BHb: tantam rell.
A mistake in manuscript B stems from the original reading in its arche-
type and also reveals a clear link to manuscript X.
Sall. 21 quod KBXMp] quot AFT

Sall. 21 et BX] om. rell.
Sall. 22 aperte ANBXEM] apte rell.
59 Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibliothek, Sanctae Crucis 228, 2nd half 12th cent. (Austria);
parchment, 265x160, 130 ff. B. Munk Olsen, L ’étude des Auteurs classiques
latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 188. X– Reynolds; ff. 124v–130v.
Manuscripts B and X consciously include the correct readings of family

in the text. In the archetypes and these were written supra lineam or
in the margin:
Sall. 11 neque hercules … aestimavi] om. T, habet N: marg. add. K2 60
Sall. 17 nihil in eo non BX ] nihil non in eo NFK: non in eo nihil A V:
nihil non in eo non T61
This is similar to the reading in

Sall. 18 in om. TDMp: in m., in c., in I. t. B
whereas other manuscripts of hyparchetype do not have such an
omission.
The group BX also includes some common errors:

Cic. 2 res sit TG
] res sit p. B: res p. sit N: sit res p. XSHPOVMp, sitr.
p. QLHbEMRZ
The abbreviation p. could be written in the text supra lineam. The manu-
scripts B and X include it in the text, while T and G follow a correct read-
ing.
Sall. 3 post latere habent K (caput) AFT

E, R (rubrica) K1BX
E] hercule BXPMpV: ercule M: hercle HR: hercul
N62
Sall. 16 aut dictum IK 2] auditum NFK 1T1G?
: et dictum L: auditu
AT2XB
Hyparchetype read auditum. B and X omitted the abbrevation.

: vetuit BXG?: vetavit T
Sall. 18 quo A2] quod T: qui K2: qua BX
Sall. 19 somnio AFK 2TC2DS] somno K 1BXEHP: sonnio NI: sonno O:
Sall. 22 petulantissime consectari FK] petulantissima consectari
(consert– BX) lingua rell.: petulantissime consectari bonos A:
60 See above p. 36.

61 See above p. 37.
62 In this passage manuscript T has an omission, see above p. 54.
bonos petulantissimis verbis consectari H b : petulantissima sectari

lingua I
There are two places where B and T have an error in common. This may
however have occurred by chance:
Cic. 1 cepisti] accepisti K, ac– del. K1: coepisti BTDR
Sall. 1 vos] om. BTE
It is thus clear that the subdivisions within hyparchetype , as marked by

Reynolds in TT 63, are correct. Manuscript T has for the most part errors
common to the rest of the manuscripts of the hyparchetype, but also at the
same time a considerable number of individual readings, sometimes in
contrast to the rest. Manuscript G is related to B, as shown in the f irst
stemma in TT. X, found later and thus not included in the first stemma, is
also related to B. At the same time, both G and X have a number of indi-
vidual readings in contrast to B. Might we therefore posit an unknown
archetype that served as a source for B, G and X?
2.4 Hyparchetypes of family

(CD+I, S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM)
2.4.1 Hyparchetype
(CD+I)
In both Reynolds’ stemmas, hyparchetype

is represented by two manu-
scripts – C and D. C and D are the oldest surviving manuscripts. C 64 was
written around 1000 in the Benedictine Abbey of Echternach in Luxem-
bourg, while D65 was written in the early 11th century in Southern Germany.
63 TT 350.
64 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ms. lat. 11127 (suppl. lat. 1331 A), around 1000
(Echternach); parchment, 170x240 (130x180), 215 ff. Schröder 1977, 57 ff.;
B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1
(Paris 1982), 25. C – Reynolds; TT 351; ff. 58v–62r.
65 Oxford, Bodleian Library , Bodl. D’Orville 77, early 1 1th cent. (Southern Ger-
many); parchment, 242x173 (188x1 18), 1 14 ff. (30 lines), f. 52: 242x142
(188x103). A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Li-
brary at Oxford by F. Madan, vol. IV (Oxford 1897), 57; B. Munk Olsen, ’Létude
des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 246 f.;
B. Barker-Benfield, 1976, 160 f. D – Reynolds; Clark, marc., ligar., deiot.; TT
351. Faks.: Paecht & Alexander; ff. 48r–52v.
2.4 Hyparchetypes of family (CD+I, S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM) 57
A later manuscript I 66 should be added to the same group. This was

written in the 2 nd half of the 12 th century in Central France. It does not
easily fit Reynolds’ stemma as it is extensively contaminated.67
For the most part hyparchetype

remains close to the archetype, with
only few errors that are significant. The reading
Sall. 16 dilectum BXCD] de– rell.: deletum I1,
where hyparchetype
has a correct reading in common with the group
BX, may be considered to have occurred by chance.
There are other cases where hyparchetype

has a correct reading in
common with certain manuscript groups and also individual manu-
scripts:
Sall. 8 ducis AK2
] dicis FK1 EOMp
N
Sall. 14 hercules
E] hercule F2V: hercle Mp: mehercules K2: hercu-
lis pedes R
Omission:
Sall. 20 domum emissem ] emissem
: emissem domum
Interpolation:
Cic. 6 etiamne 2 Z ed. ven.] etiam in
H: etiam im- O: et tam I: etiam
NRMpEMV1
At this point manuscript I stems from the same source as hyparchetype
.
All the errors have a palaeographical character.

V: et K
Sall. 5 enim] etenim
66 London, British Library, Harl. 4927, 2 nd half 12 th cent. (Central France); parch-
ment, 320x235 (243x172), 120ff. (2 col. à 33 lines). A Catalogue of the Harleian
Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. III (London 1808), 221 f.; B. Munk
Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris
1982), 215f.; Ullman, 1955; 124; TT 64; h – Clark, cael.; H – Peterson, de prov.,
pro Corn. Balbo, harusp. resp., de domo sua, post red. ad quirites, in senatu; a –
Clark, marc., ligar., deiot.; ff .18r–21r. This manuscript belonged to Petrarch.

ERV: fortunam natam
L: fortunam H1, corr. H2
: quaestus stipendia
sumptus I: quaestuosus sumptus H b: quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaes-
tiosius sumptus Q: quaestus idem sumptus OH 2P: ad sumptus add.
sed postea del. V
At this point manuscript I includes an individual interpolation, not found
anywhere else. This interpolation was probably an interlinear or mar ginal
scholium from another manuscript.68

: vetuit XBG?: vetavit T
Transposition:
Sall. 3 breve ut ] ut breve
: breve : brevem Hb
Sall. 12 esset mihi
LQRV
Sall. 15 uxorum nostrarum E] nostrarum uxorum
VMp: uxorem
nostram K1
Mistakes:
Cic. 6 insectabere] inspectabere CD1
M: nec quid EHPR: numquid : nunquid IL:
Sall. 8 ullum MPMp] nullum K1: illum N
HO
Sall. 18 debitorum «] dedit– : ledit–
: dediciciorum K
Sall. 21 parat. IsJordan] paratus
Hb: paratus est. is LSV: parat EPMp
As can be seen from the list above, manuscript I includes, with just a few
exceptions, almost all the errors common to hyparchetype
. These ex-
ceptions may be explained by the evident access of the scribe to several
manuscripts at the same time, probably from various hyparchetypes. The
manuscript exhibits an individual character, as revealed by a number of
conjectures and unique interpolations. There are some omissions and
transpositions, as well.
This is the correct reading of manuscript I in common with certain
manuscripts of family :
Sall. 19 exspectaverint TI] –averunt XB: –arint : –arent P
68 See above p. 39 and below p. 67, 81, 96, 104, 109.

Conjecture:
Cic. 7 eum insequeris Hb«] eum sequeris Grut: tua consequeris I
Sall. 1 ac] quam I
Sall. 3 studet] quaerit I
Sall. 3 debebitis] debetis KHbEROMpV: habetis I
Sall. 4 aut opinionis] aut scipiones opinionis, scipiones del. E: aut huius
opinionis I: opiniones N1, e del., i s. l. N2
Sall. 5 noti non] menti non B: non noti L: tamen I
Sall. 11 uni] vi A: in I1, ras., in marg. I2
Sall. 11 nutriverunt] nutrivererunt O: timuerunt I
Sall. 13 sufficere] efficere I: om. H1: s. l. H2: facere PO
Sall. 15 ordinem] honorem I
Sall. 15 sit] est I
Sall. 15 experrecti] experti IV: perrecti, ex s. l. H2
Sall. 16 nihil] non I1
Sall. 19 reluere «] relinire : relinquere I: relinere, e del., s. l. i H b:
reluere, elu in ras. V
Interpolation:
Cic. 1 iudicio animi ratione magis quam morbo animi procacitate (tatein
ras.) petulantia I
Cic. 3 inde] exinde Z: inde te I
Cic. 3 erat] fuerat I
Cic. 4 infinito sumptu] quo sumptu infinito I
Cic. 5 crudelissimam exheditationem et proscriptionem I
Sall. 2 ego dabo] ego vero dabo I
Sall. 3 velitari Lipsius] volutari rell.: voluptari K1HOV: volutari possit I
Sall. 3 illam Ald in mg.] aliam : aliorum Mp: sed vitam aliam I
Sall. 5 decesserunt] discesserunt K: concesserunt R: omnino decesse-
runt I: decessere
Sall. 9 te opinor] te ut opinor A: ut opinor te I:69 te opinio Hb«
Sall. 14 quaesierit] quesiverit E: quaesierint, n del. D: adquisierit I
Sall. 14 extrema] in extrema I: externa O
69 The repeated interpolation ut in manuscripts A and I is noteworthy (cf. Cic. 3

edificabat AIM; Sall. 16 vidimus te AI).
Sall. 15 despectui habuit Norden]70 despectus : despectum fecit I: des-

serptus V
Sall. 15 obprobrio vestris suspectus I
Sall. 15 c. salusti I
Sall. 17 manserat] remanserat I
Sall. 20 cum tu paulo ante dominus villae cuius vetus fuerat Cesar I
Omission:
ut c. fuit B: p. crassi viri consularis fuit NQLH bMp: viri clarissimi
om. I: publii c. v. c. fuit E: publii c. v. fuit R: publii crassi viri consu-
laris fuit ZO: publii c. vir con- fuit H 2: publii c. viri fuit P: publii c.
fuit viri clarissimi M
v. c . was written as an abbreviation in the text, thus explaining both its
interpretation in various manuscripts and also its omission in I.
Cic. 3 in om. I
Cic. 3 exaedificabat] edificabat AIM: hedificabat V
Cic. 4 removetur a vero] removetur. aliud vero : a vero om. I
Cic. 4 amicitia T2] –iae : om. I
Cic. 4 ac om. I
Cic. 7 laedis om. I
Sall. 2 cum om. I
Sall. 2 sed om. I
Sall. 2 iam om. I
Sall. 3 enim om. IMp
Sall. 5 noli mihi] mihi noli : mihi om. I
Sall. 5 p. c. om. I
Sall. 10 fugax] quidem A: om. I
Sall. 10 superet – meo om. I1, in marg. I2
Sall. 13 in aliis om. I
Sall. 16 p. c. om. I
Sall. 16 et om. I
Sall. 17 magistratum om. I
Sall. 18 vitae similitudine se B: se similitudine NI, vitae om. I
Sall. 19 exhausit2] hausit I: om. Hb
Sall. 19 duodeciens] om. I: n del. D: duodecies KNEHPO
Sall. 20 tui om. I
70 See p. 33, cf. 133.

71 See above p. 44.
Sall. 21 fieri om. I

Sall. 22 bonos petulantissime consectari FK] petulantissime consectari
bonos A: bonos petulantissima consectari (consert– BX) lingua rell.:
bonos petulantissima sectari lingua I: bonos petulantissimis verbis
consectari Hb
Sall. 22 tuis om. I1E
Transposition:
Cic. 4 dubium potest esse ] potest dubium esse : potest esse dubium I
Sall. 4 initium illis I
Sall. 5 cum iis conferri] conferri cum his I
Sall. 7 tui te BI
Sall. 8 patrocinio eguisti I
Sall. 8 egregium civem IP
Sall. 10 pace et otio] odio et pace I: pace et odio HOPMp
Sall. 13 vita sua] sua vita I: sua s. l. V
Sall. 14 postea se correxit] postea correxit se I: se correxit postea V
Sall. 14 bis iudicis ad subsellia] bis ad subsellia iudicis I: bis ad subsellia
iudiciis N
Sall. 15 ora vestra] vestra ora I: hora vestra V
Sall. 16 factum aut dictum turpe ante hunc I
Sall. 16 vidimus te AI
Sall. 17 a victore qui] qui victores I (victores NT1
Mp)
Sall. 18 vitae similitudine se B: se similitudine NI, vitae om. I
Sall. 18 in urbe fuit I
Sall. 18 homines perditi] perditi nominis I (nominis )
Sall. 19 tantum hic] hic tantum I: hic om. Mp
It is worth noting certain interesting mistakes in I. A number are individ-

ual while a few are common to other manuscripts:
Cic. 2 flagitiose hic rasura venditas I
Cic. 6 servitutis suae] servitutis tuae I: suae servitutis R
Cic. 6 onerabis] honorabis I1OV, e s. l. I2
Cic. 7 umeris] humeris NBIQHbE
Cic. 7 Scipiones] cipiones I1, s s. l. I2
Sall. 1 potest] non potest, non del. I
Sall. 1 invidia gloriam] invidiam gloria I
Sall. 1 dicendi onus] dicendi honus I: onus dicendi Z: onus imponitur di-
cendi O
Sall. 3 sordes] sortes I
Sall. 4 g. Sallustius B: crispus s. R: crispus sallustius I

Sall. 4 Metellos ] Metellos vel Fabios «: metello I: metelli Hb
Sall. 4 nobis] a nobis Mp: vobis I: de nobis « Reynolds
Sall. 5 of fudisti] obfuidisti ex of fendisti K: obfudisti B: of fendisti I:
effudisti REHbV: effudi Q
Sall. 5 niti et] niti r. p. M: niti ut R: nati et I1, corr. I2
Sall. 7 o homo, o ras. I
Sall. 7 historiis] istoriis B: in historiis NIV«Reynolds: historiae s. l. is Hb
Sall. 7 aetatem] aetate KI: etatem meam Hb: mea aetate V
Sall. 8 aluntur] alantur IV
Sall. 8 inusitata1 rabie petulanter, r. p. del. I
Sall. 9 ista] ita I
que K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae Ad
Sall. 10 otio] odio IMp
REQHbMpM
Sall. 15 sibi quoque] sibi quaeque I: quoque sibi VR: quoque om. O
Sall. 16 dilectum XB
] de– rell.: deletum I1
Sall. 16 umquam N
om.
Sall. 16 quo] qua Q: quos I
Sall. 18 chilonum] cynonum N: cilonum ISM: cylonum AF
LEHPO:
cylonium K: ciclonum QHb: cillonum MpV
Sall. 19 fide] a ante fide s. l. K: fidi I: a fide NHb
Sall. 19 nomini I
Sall. 20 ducit] duxit I
Some readings reveal the link between I and hyparchetype , and also in
particular to manuscript H b. On one occasion I shares a correct reading
with hyparchetype :
There are a number of errors common to I and Hb:
Cic. 1 ac fortunas suas] fortunasque suas I: suasque fortunas Hb
Cic. 3 tempore] tempore erat I: tempore est Hb
Sall. 5 eis] his I: iis BasGrut
Sall. 9 sum] sim IL
This is probably a chance coincidence due to a mistake.
Sall. 12 unicae] ae del., i corr. I: unici Hb

Sall. 19 reliquas] et reliquas IHb
Some errors in common with manuscript R72 are significant:

Cic. 1 M.] marce IROMp: m. t. QZ
Cic. 5 eius] huius IRV
Sall. 1 vitium incidam procacitatis] vitium procacitatis incidam IR: inci-
dam procacitatis vitium N
Sall. 9 me sperasti] sperasti me K2IER
Sall. 10 duxi] om. RI1, in marg. I2: dixi Mp
Thus it would seem that manuscript I was inf luenced by several manu-
scripts, some of them from family. The main source was still hyparche-
type
as revealed by the lists above.
Manuscript D is very close to the archetype (though it should be noted

that a close relation to the archetype is a characterictic feature of hyp-
archetype
in general). Manuscipt D contains only a few insignif icant
errors. Correct readings on two occasions in contrast to the rest of the
manuscripts of hyparchetype
seem to have occured by chance:
Mistakes in manuscript D:
Cic. 2 flagitiosissime] flagitiosissimo D
Cic. 4 Arpinas] harpinas D
Cic. 6 his NK2CIZH2MMp: iis AF D1: hiis K1D2: piis : is O: om. ERH1
Ald2LugdGrut
Cic. 7 de sestio] de sectio E: disertio R: de sestuo D
Sall. 1 c. sallusti] sallusti K: G. S. B: g. Salusti E: crispe s. R: crispe sa-
lusti IOMpV: l del. D

Sall. 7 exstinxi] extinxi KNBIRE MpHPM: extincxi D: exstinsi V : ex-

tinxit O
Sall. 9 fallit] falsit D: falli V
Sall. 9 viverent] viverunt, u del., s. l. e D: om. R
Sall. 15 exprobrare] exprobare KBDV
Sall. 18 quicquid] quidquid D
Sall. 18 in om. TDMp: quater B
Sall. 19 duodeciens] om. I: n del. D: duodecies KNEHP: cum sestertio-
rum duodecies O
Sall. 19 hortos] ortos DIHbMpMEHP
Sall. 19 Tiburtem Cortius] tiburti : tyburti AK: in tiburti D: tiburtii Mp:
tirburtii V (r1 del.)
Sall. 20 comesto] comeso NAFXC EPMp, in ras. D: commeso KTB:
Sall. 21 assecula A TE] adsecla rell.: asseda V : ascla KND: asecla L:
assecla BMpHb, in ras. I
Sall., 22 vidimus, e s. l. D
2.4.2 Hyparchetype (S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM)
Hyparchetype is the largest group of manuscripts (12 manuscripts) with a

complicated transmission history , especially as far as hyparchetype is
concerned (manuscripts RE+Z, Mp, HOPM).73 Hyparchetype , as shown
in the stemma, is represented by two minor groups (hyparchetypes and ).
In hyparchetype a number of interpolations, transpositions and
omissions are significant.
On two occasions hyparchetype provides a correct reading in
contrast to the rest of the manuscripts:
V: et K
Sall. 16 aut dictum IK 2] auditum NFK 1T1
: et dictum L: auditu A T2XB
Interpolation:
Cic. 2 res sit TG
] res sit p. B: res p. sit NLugdBas: sit res p. XSVMp
AldGrutRomCrisp, sit r. p. M
Cic. 4 illius] eius BasGrut

Transposition:
Cic. 1 petulantia ista] ista petulantia : ista p. ista (ista 1 del.) V: ista tua
petulantia in marg. AldLugdBasVen
Sall. 5 rebus gestis] gestis rebus
Omission:
Sall. 3 breve ut Inc] ut breve
: breve : brevem H b: ut id PAldLugd-
GrutBasRom, s. l. K2V
Mistake:
Sall. 16 posset
] possit K2: possis HbV1: possim V2
In the following three places the same error occurs. A word, or a part of
the word, was probably omitted in hyparchetype and added supra lin-
eam. Hyparchetypes and (or some manuscripts of the hyparchetypes)
accepted the word into the text in a wrong form:
Cic. 6 etiamne 2 Z ed. ven. ] etiam in
NREMpMV1: et tam I
Sall. 3 suo om. QHbRMH
Sall. 4 et om.
2.4.2.1 Hyparchetype (S+QHb+L)
Four manuscripts belong to hyparchetype . Reynolds pointed to the

existence of this hyparchetype in TT 74, mentioning, however , only two
manuscripts, S and Hb. Two manuscripts more, L and Q, should be added
to the hyparchetype.
The whole group is characterised by striking individual errors. These
are conscious conjectures, an attempt to recreate the authentic text.
At several points the reading of the hyparchetype is correct in
contrast to the rest of the transmission:
Sall. 8 ducis AK2
] dicis FK1 EOMp
74 TT 350–352.
Sall. 12 disserendum SHbM] discern– rell.

VMp: uxorem
nostram K1
Sall. 18 debitorum QLHb«] dedit– : ledit–
: dediciciorum K
: emissem domum
The hyparchetype is also characterised by some interesting errors. There

are omissions, transpositions and interpolations. The interpolations
sometimes seem to be logical and reveal an understanding of the text.
Omission:
Cic. 2 minime] enim me B: non Hb: om. QL
It is evident that minime was omitted in hyparchetype . The scribe of
manuscript H b having a general tenedency to many individual interpo-
lations75 saw the absent negation and inserted non.
Cic. 5 eam] illam N: om. Bas: civium «Grut: ea V

Cic. 6 molestissimis] immodestissimis I: molestis N
Cic. 7 omnis artis] artis om. QLHb: omnes artes NIMOV
Sall. 4 iam] om. QLHb: et iam O
Transposition:
Sall. 3 calumpnia quaedam QLHb
Sall. 3 sit vir] vir om. Mp: vir sit QLHb
Sall. 4 quoniam omnium] omnium quoniam QLHb
Sall. 9 satis es] satis est B: es satis AQLHb
Sall. 10 retrahente me] me retrahente RQLHb: me om. O
Sall. 14 bis iudicis] bis del., s.l. post iudicis M 2: ad bis ad iudicis H b: is
iussu R: bis ad iudicis QL: bis ad subsellia iudicis I: bis ad subsellia
iudiciis N
Sall. 15 sibi quoque] sibi quaeque I: quoque sibi QLH bVR: quoque om. O
Interpolation:

76 See above p. 44, 60.

Cic. 3 domo ] domi QLHb«: dono B
In manuscript S the reading is the same as in the archetype. 77 In hyp-
archetype domi was written and so the reading of S seems to have been
correct, though by chance.
Cic. 4 pompeianum] pompeianum agrum QHbL

Ald2LugdGrut
Sall. 5 odio] studio QLHb: hodio V
Sall. 5 eis] his I
Sall. 6 urbe] urbem PH
Sall. 6 vixissent] venissent CDPMpH1
Numquid was written in hyparchetype and so the mistake in L occured
by chance.
Sall. 7 est] om. R: est p. c. QLHbV1 (p. c. del. V2)

Sall. 13 accusare] culpare QLHb
Sall. 13 habuit] habebat QLHb
: quaestuosus sump-
sed postea del. V
Quaestuosi sumptus was written in hyparchetype , but the manuscripts
Hb and Q read the abbreviation differently.78
Mistakes:
Sall. 1 inloto] in loco BO: illoto NIEMMp
Sall. 5 decesserunt] discesserunt K: concesserunt R: omnino decesserunt
I: decessere
Sall. 7 vel NordenKurfess] illum X
L: illam T: illic QHb: illinc S: illud
ERMp: ullum N: del. HeraeusReynoldsSB
77 See Reynolds’ edition of Sallust ad loc.

78 See above p. 39, 58, and below p. 81, 96, 104, 109.
Sall. 9 in2 om. RLHbMp

Sall. 9 facilius mulieres se] facilius se mulieres QLOV : se facilius mu-
lieres Hb
In hyparchtype the word se was probably omitted and then written
supra lineam. The manuscripts interpreted its place in the sentence dif-
ferently.
Sall. 11 in ERMMpV] om. rell.: in vos om. Hb: nos QL

Sall. 14 hercules
lis pedes R
Sall. 16 umquam N
om.
Manuscript S79 is the oldest in this group. It includes no interesting invid-

ual readings. On one occasion S contains the correct reading together
with some other manuscripts in contrast to the rest of the tradition, some-
thing that probably occurred by chance:
S] –itur rell.: intelligetur LIV : intelligitur
REQHbMpM
There are some mistakes in manuscript S:

LEHO: cylonium K: ci-
clonum QHb: cillonum MpV: cynonum N
Within hyparchetype there are a number of manuscript subdivisions.

There is a clear group gemelli Q80 and Hb.81 They have a common origin,
both being written in England or France (?).
79 Edinburgh, National Library , Adv. 18.7.8, 1 1th –12th cent. (England, Thorney);
palimpsest, 201x125, 34 ff.; The Manuscripts of Early Norman England
c.1066–1130 by R. Gameson (The British Academy 1999), 88; I. C. Cunning-
ham, “Latin classical manuscripts in the National Library of Scotland”, Scrip-
torium 1973, 64–90, 88–89; B. Munk Olsen, L ’étude des Auteurs classiques
latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 167. S– Reynolds; TT 351. Faks.:
CLA Suppl. 1689, 1690, 1691. ff. 28r–33v.
80 Cambridge, Trinity College, Ms. 1381 (O. 8.6), 12th cent. (England or France?);
parchment, 210x130 (153x90), II+59ff. (33 lines, f.59v – 11 lines); The Western
On one occasion the group QH b together with manuscript A from

family has a correct reading in contrast to the rest of the transmission:
Sall. 8 rudimenta AQHb] erud– rell.
The group QH b contains a number of common errors. It is worth noting

that the errors reveal a knowledge of Latin by the scribe, whilst even the
mistakes do not seem to be haphazard but rather thought through.
Interpolation:
Cic. 2 pueritia] puero QHb: pueritia tua EMp
Cic. 3 carnificis] add. fuisse QHb
Cic. 7 laudas] ce laudas, ce del. Q: collaudas Hb
Sall. 2 mentitum esse videatur] mentitus esse videar«QHbVK2: mentitum
Sall. 2 minimis] in minimis QHbZ: non cum (cum del.) minimis V
Sall. 3 vita istius] ista vita Hb: vita ista Q
Sall. 8 ausus sis] sis ausus P: ausus es fio Q: sic ausus es Hb
suo aio Hb
In the source manuscript for Hb and Q suum annum was probably written
unclearly. Thus the two manuscripts interpreted it differently.
runt V
Sall. 11 aestimavi] existimavi QHb: extimavi V
Sall. 17 idem] ille QHb
Sall. 18 dederat] dedisset QHb
Manuscripts in the Library of T rinity College, Cambridge, a Descriptive Cata-

logue by M. Rhodes James, v . III (Cambridge 1902), 393 f.; B. Munk Olsen,
L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982),
160; TT 351. ff. 56r–59v.
81 London, British Library, Harl. 3859, early 12th cent. (France or England); parch-
ment, 265x150 (180x103), 365 ff.; A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in
the British Museum, vol. III (London 1808), 87 f.; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des
Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 215; The
Manuscripts of Early Norman England (c.1066–1130) by R. Gameson (The Brit-
ish Academy 1999), 108. Hb – Kurfess, TT 351. ff. 169r–173r.
Transposition:
Sall. 1 incidam in idem vitium procacitatis QHb
Sall. 3 potest latere] latere potest QHb
Sall. 4 hoc fuit] fuit hoc QHb
Sall. 9 materiae habens] habens materiae QHb
Sall. 13 maiorem iniuriam] iniuriam maiorem QHb
Sall. 16 per me nihil] nihil per me QHb
Sall. 16 est quisque] et quisque E: est quisque est Q: quisque est NH b
Sall. 19 est factus] factus est QHbM
Omission:
Cic. 2 vi om. QHb
Cic. 7 Romule om. QHb
Sall. 1 non] non in B: om. QHb
Sall. 2 omnino] omnio B: om. QHb: omni V
Sall. 4 ad unum om. QHb
Sall. 9 me om. K1QHb
Sall. 9 mutuam] om. QHb: metuam P
Sall. 11 me om. QHb
Sall. 11 ego–voluerunt om. QHb
Sall. 13 tu om. QHb
Sall. 14 an amiserit] an miserit QHb
Sall. 16 nonne] non QHb
Mistakes:
Cic. 7 Optimus] om. R: optumus QHb
Cic. 7 concilio] concilium NMO: cilium H1, corr. H2: –ia F: conciliorum
Mp: consilio QHb
Cic. 7 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp:
Sall. 2 praeterire] praeteriit QHb
Sall. 3 testante animo] restante animo Q: animo restante Hb
In all probability, restante, used instead of testante, is a mistake and not
an interpolation. The letter t was read wrongly.
Sall. 6 petendis] petundis QHb

QHbMp
Sall. 12 adsunt] assunt EQHb
Manuscript H b is in many ways special; its scribe had a rich imagin-

ation and a creative approach to writing. The manuscript includes a large
number of individual readings, some of them interpolations and other re-
constructions of the archetype’s omissions:
Cic. 1 iudicia rem publicam] R. P. audacia A: iudiciaque p. r. Hb: iudicia
Cic. 3 tempore] tempore erat I: tempore est Hb
Cic. 6 perpessos] nos perpessos Hb
Sall. 1 tua respondeat] tua non respondeat Hb
Sall. 7 aetatem] aetate KI: etatem meam Hb: mea aetate V
Sall. 14 P. Crassi domo habitet] p. c. crassi habitet domo Hb
Sall. 18 nisi] nisi in Hb
Sall. 19 fide] a ante fide s. l. K: fidi I: a fide NHb
Sall. 22 non] non ut Hb: om. M
Conjectures:
Cic. 2 quod] si Hb
Cic. 6 confeceris] feceris B: om. K1: perfeceris Hb
Cic. 7 redisti] cecidisti B: redidisti Q: redires Hb
Cic. 7 eum insequeris Hb«] eum sequeris : tua consequeris I
Cic. 7 illa] hac HbR
Sall. 1 atque] aut HbZ: adque V
Sall. 9 opinor] ut opinor A: opinio Hb«
Sall. 12 Vatinio NHb«]82 vatino : vectivo V
Sall. 13 habebat sed si quali adolescentia fueris si demonstravero Hb
This is a rare example of the distortion of a large part of the text.

Sall. 14 vendidit om. Hb«: del. JordanEussnerKurfessReynoldsSB
Sall. 14 sacrilegi Nigidiani] sacrilegii nigidiani Q: sacrilegium nigidia-
num Hb
Sall. 14 discessit] stetit Hb
Sall. 15 matrum] matribus HbV: om. Q
82 Note the logic of the scribe of H b, cf. in Cic. 7 vatini] vanii N: vatinii H bAld-
LugdBasGrut.
Sall. 16 confluxerat ex coniecat Hb

Sall. 17 est reductus] receptus est Hb: reductus est M
Sall. 17 ipsi] illi HbE
Sall. 18 excesserat] excesserit B: confluxerat Hb
Sall. 18 parricidarum] parricidalium Hb: patricidarum V
Sall. 19 traici] trahici KM: traci, i s. l. N: trahi B: tercii Hb
sert– BX) lingua rell.: petulantissime consectari bonos A: bonos
Transposition:
Cic. 1 viri clarissimi] clarissimi viri KHb
Sall. 1 aetatem omnem Hb
Sall. 1 id forte si vos Hb: suffortem Q: vos om. BTE
Sall. 3 testante animo] restante animo Q: animo restante Hb
Sall. 3 bonis obiectat] bonis obiectas Q: obiectat bonis Hb
Sall. 3 vita istius] ista vita Hb: vita ista Q
Sall. 4 dignitatis et nominis Hb
Sall. 8 de te plura] plura de te Hb
Sall. 8 cupiditatem gloriae Hb
Sall. 9 se facilius mulieres Hb
Sall. 11 volui plus Hb
Sall. 11 viribus suis Hb
Sall. 12 si tunc vitia mihi obicis Hb
Sall. 13 filium talem Hb
Sall. 14 P. Crassi domo habitet] p.c. crassi habitet domo Hb
Sall. 17 est reductus] receptus est Hb
Sall. 19 cum cesare duodecies Hb
Omission:
Cic. 2 scilicet om. Hb
Cic. 5 tu om. BGHb
Sall. 3 patres concsripti2] om. Hb
Sall. 9 neque] nec Hb
Sall. 9 parare-mihi om. OHb
Sall. 10 in re publica] in r. b. O: p. s. l. H2: om. Hb
Sall. 12 p. c. om. Hb
Sall. 13 praeteream] praeterea RQ: om. Hb
Sall. 17 ne om. Hb1, s. l. Hb2: non V
Sall. 19 exhausit2] hausit I: om. Hb
Sall. 20 repente om. Hb: repente rationibus O
Sall. 22 quid–videmus om. Hb1, in mg. add. Hb2
Mistakes in Hb often seem to be conjectures:

Cic. 4 simultatem] simultantem Hb: simultans E
Cic. 5 perculsos] percussos IHbV: perculsus R
Cic. 6 quidlibet] quodlibet BGHb
Cic. 7 vatini] vanii N: vatinii Hb83
Sall. 2 sallustium] salustio Hb
Sall. 3 luculentus TLipsius] luculenter Hb: lutulentus rell.: lutulentum Q:
lutulentus sa, sa del. Mp: sus add. ERZ(?)MMp
Sall. 3 breve ut ] ut breve
: breve : brevem Hb: ut id P, s. l. K2V
Sall. 3 vobis] nobis Hb
Sall. 4 maiores] mores N: maiorum Hb
Sall. 4 Metellos ] Metellos vel Fabios «Ven. in mg .: metello I: metelli
HbBasGrut
suo aio Hb
Sall. 12 unicae] ae del., i corr. I: unici Hb
Sall. 15 nimium] nimirum Hb
Sall. 19 in naves] inquam A: in aves Hb: ignavos E
Bearing in mind the large number of interpolations in manuscript Hb and
the rich fantasy of the scribe involved, it would perhaps not be inappro-
priate to consider this mistake to be a witty joke on the scribe’s part.
Sall. 19 quippiam] quicquam Hb

Sall. 19 tamquam] tanquam NMpMHb: tamque K: tanque P: om. L
Sall. 21 triumphalem] triumfalem Hb
Sall. 22 dicendi] dicendic, c del E: dicundi Hb
83 See above p. 71, footnote.

Manuscript L84 includes fewer interpolations. Though it has a number of

individual readings, it is still characterised by very few deviations from
the archetype.
Conjecture:
Cic. 4 parasti] paraveris Led. princ. Reynolds: parasses V: pararisJordan
The reading paraveris is probably not a conjecture of editio princeps, 85
but an earlier conjecture. While it is unlikely that this is a correct reading
running against the rest of tradition, this possibility can not be com-
pletely excluded.86
Sall. 6 popularem] pluralem L

Sall. 14 P.] publii Mp: m. L
This conjecture may have been based onM. Crassi mentioned in the text
above in Cic. 4.87
Omissions occurring by chance (probably because of abbreviations) are

not significant:
Sall. 1 mihi om. L
Sall. 19 tamquam] tanquam NMpMHb: tamque K: tanque P: om. L
Sall. 21 consularem] consulerem T e eras.: consulem L
A transposition occurred probably by chance:

Sall. 5 noti non] non noti L: menti non B: tamen I
Mistakes:
Cic. 1 reperticius] repertius M: repertitius LAld in mg.
84 Florenz, Bibliotheca Laurentiana; Laur. 45.2, 1 st half 12 th cent. (France or Eng-

land?); parchment, 197x135, 100 ff.; Catalogus codicum latinorum bibliothecae
Laurentianae, t.1 (Florenz 1774), 335 ff.; B. Munk Olsen, L ’étude des Auteurs
classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 2 (Paris 1985), 323. a – Clark, in cat.,
TT 62. ff. 82r–84?.
85 Cf. Reynolds 227.
86 See above p. 30 and below p. 130.
Sall. 1 conviciatori] convitiatori L

Sall. 2 qui] quam HO: quod M: quia L
Sall. 7 an] ac L
Sall. 20 hercules] hercle KMp: hercules A es in ras.: hercule NLV
Sall. 22 non quae] neque T: non ex nam K: non quia L: numquam E: non
quam, m del. H: non quem P: quam M
There are two occasions when L has a common transposition and a com-
mon omission with manuscript Q:
Sall. 12 esset mihi R
LQV
Sall. 13 egeris–enim om. QL
There are also two occasions when L has a common transposition and
a common mistake with manuscript Hb:
Cic. 1 rem publicam] r. p. : rei p. P: p. r. NLHbR
2.4.2.2 Hyparchetype (RE+Z, HOPM, Mp)
Hyparchetype is one of the most complicated hyparchetypes. The

transmission of this group of manuscripts belonging to the hyparchetype
is unclear and the manuscripts are partly contaminated. Manuscript M,
as shown by Kurfess and Reynolds, has some common readings with the
manuscripts of family in contrast to other manuscripts of family .
Manuscript Mp, published here for the f irst time, belongs to hyparche-
type but to none of its groups. It represents an individual part of the
tradition. It has a strikingly contaminated character with access to both
families and . There are omissions, transpositions and one significant
interpolation in hyparchetype .
On two occasions hyparchetype has a correct reading in contrast to
the rest of the manuscripts of the archetype:
Sall. 11 in ERMMpV] om. rell.: in vos om. Hb: nos QL
This word had to be written supra lineam, as it had been accepted into the
text in most manuscripts of hyparchetype .

HO
In all probability, ullum was written in hyparchtype. Manuscripts H and
O mistakenly wrote illum.
Interpolation:
lutulentus sa, sa del. Mp: sus add. ERZ(?)MMp88
Sall. 11 adversarius] inimicus : om. O
Omission:
Sall. 9 meam om.
Transposition:
Sall. 19 p. c. exhausit2 89
: emissem domum
Mistakes:
Mp: consilio QHb
The abbreviation was interpreted wrongly by hyparchetype in this
place.

Sall. 22 non quae] neque T: non ex nam K: non quia L: numquam E: non
2.4.2.2.1 Hyparchetype (RE+Z)
Reynolds mentions a group of manuscripts called RE inTT.90 R is not in-

cluded in his edition of Sallust, possibly because it is corrupted (not
ended). Manuscript Z also belongs to hyparchetype .
88 In my opinion, a conjecture made by Justus Lipsius is preferable in this place

(see below p. 138). Cf. Reynolds 230.
89 There is a mistake in Reynolds’ apparatus at this point.
90 TT 350–352.
Manuscript R91 is the oldest in the group. It has some common read-
ings with manuscript E, all errors of and none of . It should be pointed
out that the manuscript was interrupted and has not been preserved
in full. 92 Some important readings are therefore absent. Manuscript E 93
mentioned by Kurfess and Reynolds includes some individual readings.94
Manuscript Z,95 published here for the first time, was damaged seriously
and containes only part of the text of the invectives.96
Errors of hyparchetype :
Cic. 7 omnis artis] artis om. QLHb: omnes artes NIOMV
Cic. 7 omnis2] omnes KTHbMV
lutulentus sa, sa del. Mp: sus add. ERZ(?)MMp97
Sall. 4 et om.
The group ER includes some common transpositions:

Cic. 7 sentis de re publica] de re p. sentis R: de r. p. sentis E
Sall. 9 sperasti me K2IER
And some common mistakes:

Cic. 2 comparasti] parasti, con s. l. R: parasti E
91 Reims, Bibliothèque Municipale, Reims 1329, 2nd half 11th cent. (France); parch-
ment, 185x135, 1 15 ff.; Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques
publiques de France, Départements t.39, Reims t.2 (Paris 1904), 475f.; B. Munk
1985), 345; R – TT 351; ff. 107r–109r.
92 The text of R ends with Sall. 15 et soporem nimium exprobrare.
93 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14714 (1683), 1 st half 12 th cent.
(St. Emmeram, Regensbur g); parchment, 197x140, 138+1 ff., blind lining with
prickings; Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, t. II, p. I
(München 1874), 221f.; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux
XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 234f.; E – Reynolds; Kurfess;TT 351; ff. 4r–7v.
95 Sélestat, Humanistenbibliothek, Ms. 93, 7 (anc. 98), 13 th cent. (France); parch-
ment, 248x190, 126ff.; 7 different parts, 7th part: ff. 105–126, 260x195 (195x133),
32 lines, blind lining with prickings; seriously damaged; Catalogue sommaire
des manuscrits de la bibliotheque de Sélestat, ch. 12: Medicine, sciences na-
turelles; 121 f.; Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques
des départements, t. 3 (Paris 1861), 548; ff.125–126.
96 The text of Z ends with Sall. 6 maleficiis tam severus aut in.
97 This passage is damaged in Z. From its position and its surroundings it may be
considered that the text read sus.

Sall. 5 of fudisti] obfudisti B: ef fudisti H bERV: ef fudi Q: obfuidisti
ex offendisti K: offendisti I
M: nec quid ERHP: numquid : nunquid IL:
Sall. 9 domi] domui AERMMpV
S] –itur rell.: intelligetur NIL V: intelligitur
QHbREMMp
Sall. 14 tirocinio] tyrocinio KBQERMP: arocinio O
It should be pointed out that many readings common to ER coincide with
readings of the manuscripts Hb and M98.
Manuscripts R and Z share an interpolation:

Cic. 3 disiecta eo] disiecta est eo RZ
They also share a conjecture:

Sall. 5 obiectare] obicere RZ
The only error common to the group ZE probably occurred by chance:

Cic. 3 oppugnatum d. t. T : obpugnatum BGZEH: oppugnatum oppug,
postea corr. Q
On one occasion manuscript R includes a correct reading within hyp-

archetype , in contrast to other readings of hyparchetype :
RV: omnia quaeque NF : omniamquamque
K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae A
Manuscript R is characterized by a number of omissions, transpositions

and conjectures.
Omission:
Cic. 1 affricani NKBILHbZEMpHP: om. R: affricam O
Cic. 2 delibuta T] debilitata rell.: debilitate N: debelitata B: dedita R:
debitata LOP1
98 Concerning manuscript H b, see above p. 71 ff. For manuscript M, see below

p. 97 ff. It is seriously contaminated, and has a so-called “horizontal” tradition,
i.e. the scribe had access to several contemporary manuscripts.
Cic. 2 comparasti] parasti, con s. l. R: parasti E

Cic. 3 haec cum ] cum haec Hb: haec om., s. l. R
This omission occurred at the point where two families and diverge
and have a split reading. Presumably haec was written supra lineam in
the archetype, and so family accepted the variant haec cum, and family
accepted the variant cum haec. It may also be relevant here that Hb has
a reading in common with family .
Cic. 3 is aut domum tuam oppugnatum venerat aut] is domum tuam aut
venerat aut R
Cic. 6 te om. R
Cic. 6 tuo om. R
Cic. 7 Optimus] om. R: optumus QHb
Cic. 7 in1 om. R
Sall. 6 perniciosam] om. R
Sall. 6 incolumes in urbe] in hac urbe R: incolumes in hac urbe
AldLugdBasGrutRom: in colomes in urbe E
Sall. 7 est] om. R: est p. c. QLHbV, p. c. del. V2
Sall. 9 in1 om. R
Sall. 9 tibi om. RMp
Sall. 9 viverent] viverunt, u del., s. l. e D: om. R
Sall. 11 quisque om. R
Sall. 12 Caesaris om. R
Sall. 15 aditus] additus T: om. R
Transposition:
Cic. 1 iudicia rem publicam] r. p. audacia A: iudiciaque p. r. H b: iudicia
Cic. 2 mirandum est minime R
Cic. 3 causa coniurationis R
Cic. 3 is aut domum tuam oppugnatum venerat aut] is domum tuam aut
venerat aut R
Cic. 3 denique de eo] de eo denique R
Cic. 6 servitutis suae] servitutis tuae I: suae servitutis R
Sall. 3 nostra p. c. inutilis nobis erit R
Sall. 3 res publica] p. res R
Sall. 4 suae res gestae R
Sall. 5 gestis florere in mg. V: rebus florere gestis R

suo aio Hb
Sall. 11 ego nihil timui nisi leges post inimicus R
Conjecture:
Cic. 5 me] se R
Cic. 6 nostras] tuas R
Sall. 3 vero] g BE: quidem R
Sall. 5 me] enim R
Sall. 5 decesserunt] discesserunt K: concesserunt R: omnino decesserunt
I: decessere
Sall. 13 qua] quid R: tu add. O
Sall. 13 eo] ergo R
Sall. 14 cuiquam] cui nam R
Sall. 14 sodalicium] solilitium R
Sall. 14 bis iudicis ad subsellia] bis del., s. l. post iudicis M 2: ad bis ad
iudicis ad subsellia Hb: is iussu ad subsellia R: bis ad iudicis ad sub-
sellia QL: bis ad subsellia iudicis I: bis ad subsellia iudiciis N.
Interpolation:
Sall. 3 nostra p. c. inutilis nobis erit R
Sall. 6 incolumes in urbe] in hac urbe R: incolumes in hac urbeAldLugd-
BasGrutRom: in colomes in urbe E
Sall. 10 gratulatus] congratulatus R
Sall. 14 hercules
lis pedes R
Mistakes:
Cic. 1 reliquus] ereliquis R: reliqus M
Cic. 3 Plautiae] placiae K: plauticae E: planciae VR
Cic. 5 perculsos] percussos IHbV: perculsus R
Cic. 6 Sullamque] scillamque R: et sillam Z: syllamque KNE: sillam Mp:
sillamque BIH
Cic. 7 de Sestio] de sectio E: disertio R: de sestuo D
Sall. 1 c. sallusti] sallusti K: G. S. B: g. Salusti E: crispe s. R: crispe

salusti IOMpV: l del. D
Sall. 4 C. Sallustius] g. Sallustius B: crispus s. R: crispus sallustius I
Sall. 8 cupiditatem] cupidinem R
Sall. 12 Sesti] festi AV: sexti E: sestii NBIHb: resti R
Sall. 13 summam] summo R: summama E
Sall. 13 immensae] inmerissae R: inmensae H
Sall. 15 viris VK2] vestris : uris R: nostris Mp: om. Q: vestries I1, corr.
vobis I2
On three occasions manuscript R includes errors in common with hyp-

archetype
:
Sall. 13 quaestus aEMH1Mp] quaestus sumptus Ry: quaestuosus sumptus
Hb: quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaestiosius sumptus Q: quaestus idem
sumptus OH 2P: quaestus stipendia sumptus I: ad sumptus add. sed
postea del. V
Sall. 14 K (caput) post domo habent AFK1TR
: R (rubrica) habet B
Sall. 12 esset mihi R
LQV
Manuscript R includes a number of errors common to some separate

manuscripts of hyparchetype
. An omission is shared by manuscript R
and manuscript I:
A conjecture:
Cic. 5 eius] huius IRV
A mistake, in common with two other manuscripts of family :

Manuscript R is close to certain manuscripts from hyparchetypes and .

Thus manuscript R includes a conjecture common to manuscript H b of
hyparchetype :
Cic. 7 illa] hac HbR
Omission common to manuscripts of hyparchetypes and :

Cic. 5 o om. RHM
Interpolation:
Transposition:
Sall. 5 in oblivionem venerint RM
Sall. 10 retrahente me] me retrahente R: me om. O
Sall. 12 esset mihi
LQRV
Sall. 15 sibi quoque] sibi quaeque I: quoque sibi RV: quoque om. O
Mistakes:
Sall. 7 quantum] quam QR
N
Sall. 12 culpabuntur] culpantur RO: culpabantur H
Sall. 13 praeteream] praeterea RQ: om. Hb
Sall. 13 experireris] expirireris B experiebaris E: experieris RO
Manuscript R includes some errors in common with family :

Cic. 1 et sceleratissimo] om. R: et celeratissimo E: et sceratissimo O
Reynolds accepted here the reading of and considered the reading
of to be an omission. This might however be an interpolation in the
manuscripts of family , written supra lineam, and thus omitted in manu-
script R.
Cic. 1 e familia] e om. A: effamilia B: ex familia KR

Sall. 13 efferebaris] efferebatis s. l. r K2: efferaberis RB: efferebans T
Sall. 14 attractus] actractus T: adtractus KR: atractus B
Manuscript E is marked by numerous individual readings, especially by

omissions and conjectures. The correct readings of manuscript E, whether
individual or common to other manuscripts, seem to have occurred by
chance:
Cic. 3 Tusculanam EM] –um rell.
VMp: uxorem
nostram K1
As seen above, there are a number of correct readings of E in common

with manuscripts of family and hyparchetype . E includes errors in
common with these manuscripts as well.99
Manuscript E is characterized by the frequency of its omissions. The
scribe was also inattentive and there are a large number of transpositions
and duplications.
Omission in manuscript E:
Cic. 1 paterer om. E
Cic. 1 atque om. E: s. l. V
Cic. 1 turpissimo om. E
Cic. 3 pecunia] om. E: peccunia GOMp
Cic. 6 ea quae] eamque K1: ea om. E
Cic. 7 qui om. E
Cic. 7 tua om. E
Sall. 1 enim] eo V: om. E
Sall. 2 quidem om. E
Sall. 3 vitae s. l. E2
Sall. 3 neque] nec E
Sall. 3 haec] om. E: s. l. K2: enim Mp
Sall. 5 meis maioribus] maioribus meis : meis om. E
Sall. 5 publica om. E
Sall. 7 pace] in pace B: pace om. E
Sall. 7 quod] qui B: quodquod Q: quo E
Sall. 8 nocens eguisti om. E1, in mg. E2
Sall. 9 mihi multo] multo mihi KN: post multo s. l. mihi sim V : mihi
om. E
Sall. 13 cupiditatibus om. E
Sall. 13 infinitis] infiniti E
Sall. 16 palam om. E
Sall. 17 nihil om. E
Sall. 19 postea quam] postquam E
Sall. 22 ut om. E: sed et ut O
99 See below p. 86 f.
Interpolation:
Sall. 1 ita] vita E
Sall. 2 magis] magius E
Sall. 3 obiectant E
Sall. 4 aut scipiones opinionis, scipiones del. E: aut huius opinionis I:
opiniones, e del. N1, i s. l. N2
Sall. 12 civis] civis sunt E
Sall. 14 domum] domam T: domum tuam E1, tuam del., paternam s. l. E2
Sall. 22 amicum] te amicum E
Conjecture:
Cic. 1 se ipse] se ipsum EV: sese MpAldLugdBasGrutRom
Cic. 2 tua ac (aut BX) dicta I] ac (an E) dicta tua BasGrut: facta tua ac
dicta tua N
Cic. 3 faciebatis s. l. s (=faciebas) E: faciebas Mp
Cic. 3 condemnabas] condempnabas NIHbMH: condempnabatis, s s. l. E:
condonabas V
Cic. 4 simultatem] simultantem Hb: simultans E
Sall. 3 istius] ipsius E: illius N
Sall. 6 aut1 om. B1, s. l. B2: ut E
Sall. 13 iam] non E: om. O
Sall. 19 praetor] rector E: praetorem O
Sall. 19 voluit] potuit E1, del., s. l. voluit E2
Sall. 21 altero] alio E
Transposition:
Cic. 5 infelicem vero E
Cic. 5 parere crudelitati tuae] crudelitate tua parere E: tuae parere cru-
delitati I: parere tuae crudelitati Mp: parare c. t. H1, e corr. H2
Cic. 7 videbantur optimates E
Sall. 1 aequalem vitam verbis agere E: vitam verbis V
Sall. 7 mihi historiis E
Sall. 9 invidiam putasti E
Sall. 9 familiari re E
Sall. 11 iustas omnium semper E
Sall. 14 potest dubium esse E
Sall. 15 conscium esse E
Sall. 16 hunc possit p. c. movere E
Sall. 20 sibi quisquam E

Sall. 22 hoc enim E: enim s. l. A
Mistakes:
Cic. 3 Plautiae] placiae K: plauticae E: planciae VR
Cic. 4 pecunia] pugna E: peccunia Mp
Cic. 5 imo E: inmo Q
Cic. 6 profeceris] profeceras B: perfeceris HbVZ: profeciris E
Cic. 7 eosdem] eos deo E
Cic. 7 de Sestio] de sectio E: disertio R: de sestuo D
Sall. 1 C. sallusti] sallusti K: G. S. B: g. Salusti E: crispe s. R: crispe sa-
lusti IOMpV: l del. D
Sall. 3 procicitate E
Sall. 4 et] ad E
Sall. 5 initium ante exemplum iter., sed del. E100
Sall. 6 incolumes in urbe] in hac urbe R: in colomes in urbe E
Sall. 6 staret] starent, n del. E
Sall. 7 pudicitia] pudiccia E
Sall. 9 unus es enim satis es E
Sall. 10 C. sallusti] g. salustii EK 1, s. l. crispe K 2: c. s. H b: crispe s. Mp:
crispe salusti O
Sall. 10 universo populo romano] universae p. r . E: re universo p. r ., re
del. I
Sall. 13 te quod te E
Sall. 13 summam] summo R: summama E
Sall. 14 quaesierit] quesiverit E: quaesierint, n del. D: adquisierit I
Sall. 14 existimarentur] –retur n s. l. E: extimarentur V
Sall. 16 eluere] elucere E: eludere HPO
Sall. 16 umquam N
om.
Sall. 19 in naves] inquam A: in aves Hb: ignavos E
Sall. 19 pascicitur Mp: pasciscitur B: pascitur E
Sall. 20 quem ne] qui me E: ne om. N
Sall. 22 his] hic E: hiis V
100 Cf. Sall. 9; 13.

Manuscript E includes many errors in common with manuscripts from

family . An omission is common to all the manuscripts of family :
Sall. 12 ego om. E
Manuscript E frequently includes errors in common with manuscript B:

Cic. 5 tu om. ABE: tui, i del. V1
Sall. 1 vos om. TBE
Sall. 3 vero] g BE: quidem R
Sall. 7 et om. BE: del. T
A number of errors are common to manuscript A and manuscript K, both

of hyparchtype :
Too many common errors are found here for this to be considered chance.
Manuscript E was probably contaminated. Furthermore contamination
seems especially likely given that E has many common readings with the
manuscripts of hyparchetype , especially with the manuscript M, which
was also contaminated. 101 A correct reading common to E and M prob-
ably occurred by chance:
Cic. 3 Tusculanam EM] –um rell.
Other errors common to E and the manuscripts of hyparchetype :

Cic. 7 umeris] humeris NBIQHbE
Sall. 8 ducis AK2
] dicis FK1 EOMp
Sall. 16 L.] lucii EMp
Sall. 17 exsules] exules LEM
Sall. 19 duodeciens] om. I: n del. D: duodecies KNHbE
Sall. 19 qui modo] quo modo NEP: quidem modo Mp: quommodo B
Sall. 19 somnio AFK 2TC2D] somno K 1BXEHP: sonnio NI: sonno O:
Sall. 20 comesto] comeso AFNXC EPMp, in ras. D: commeso KTB:


This error probably occurred by chance. Manuscripts E, P and Mp read
the abbreviation parat!us" wrongly.
Finally, manuscript E has some common errors with the manuscripts of

hyparchetype , mainly with manuscript Hb:
Sall. 7 a] ab HbE
Sall. 12 adsunt] assunt QHbE
Sall. 17 ipsi] illi HbE
E: quam I: quantum Ne
Two errors in common with manuscript I seem to have occurred by chance:

Cic. 2 ipsam tuam] tuam ipsam IE
Sall. 22 tuis om. I1E
Manuscript Z, the third manuscript of hyparchetype , is seriously da-

maged and though it contains the whole text of the invective against
Cicero, the second invective is only partly preserved.102
Within hyparchetype , manuscript Z has common readings with
manuscript R:
Cic. 3 disiecta eo] disiecta est eo RZ
Sall. 5 obiectare] obicere RZ
Sall. 5conferri decet] conferre debet R: conferre decet NZ
On two occasions manuscript Z has an individual correct reading in

contrast to the rest of tradition:
Cic. 6 etiamne2 Zed. ven.] etiam in
H: etiam im- O: etiamERMMpV:
et tam I
This reading may have occurred by chance, through repetition of the
prtevious etiamne. Manuscript Z may however have had the same source
as the late manuscripts used by Venetian editors.103
Ald2LugdGrut

Z correctly includes his in the text in common with other manuscripts of

hyparchetype , whilst E and R omit it.
Manuscript Z has few individual errors. There are some interpolations,

three conjectures, a few transpositions and a number of omissions.
Conjecture:
Cic. 1 clarissimi] audacissimi Z
sillamque BIH
Interpolation:
Cic. 1 ac si non sit Z
Cic. 3 inde] exinde Z: inde te I
Cic. 3 et idcirco] non idcirco V: et non idcirco Z: et iccirco Hb
Cic. 6 parum ] parum est ZI«BasGrut
As this is the only place where manuscripts Z and I share a common error
,
this may have occurred by chance.
Sall. 4 acta] et acta Z
Transposition:
Cic. 1 venales habeat] habeat venales Z: venales habebat N
Cic. 1 viri Scipionis audacissimi Z
Cic. 7 virtute tua Z
Cic. 7 Caesarem laudas Z
Sall. 1 dicendi onus] dicendi honus I: onus dicendi Z
Sall. 2 magnam non habere Z
Omission:
Cic. 1 largitionibus om. Z
Cic. 3 aliquos Kurfess] alio Z: alios ceteri
Cic. 5 pars corporis] corporis pars A: pars, corporis s. l. Z
Cic. 7 edocuit] educuit B: docuit Z
Sall. 2 hominem om. Z(?)V
Sall. 3 bonis om. Z
Sall. 4 suae om. Z
Sall. 5 mea om. Z, s. l. V1
Mistakes:
Cic. 3 extollunt] extolluit Z: exextollunt Mp
Cic. 4 falsa] falsum Z
Cic. 4 qua] quam Z
Cic. 5 a turpitudine] turpitudinis Z
This mistake occurred by analogy with the previous corporis.
Cic. 7 superasti] superastis Z

Cic. 7 fecisti] fecistis Z
Sall. 5 una] unam Z
As is the case with the rest of the manuscripts of hyparchetype , manu-

script Z shares errors in common with manuscripts H b and Q from hyp-
archetype :
Cic. 6 profeceris] profeceras B: perfeceris HbZV: profeciris E
Cic. 7 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio QH bZ: diratio I: dirratio HMp:
Sall. 1 atque] aut HbZ: adque V
Sall. 2 minimis] in minimis QHbZ: non cum (cum del.) minimis V
Sall. 5 fuerunt] fuerint BQMV2: fuerant HbZ
Two errors manuscript Z shares in common with manuscript N from

family probably occurred by chance:
Cic. 4 sanguine civium ac miseriis ZN
Some errors of Z in common with the manuscripts of hyparchetype :

Cic. 5 natam om. ZMH
Cic. 7 Iupiter DIHbZMOMp
Cic. 7 ante om. ZHMO
Sall. 1 respondero] respondeo KNZH1O, corr. s. l. H2
2.4.2.2.2 Hyparchetype (HOPM)
Hyparchetype is the most complicated group of the stemma. As men-

tioned by Reynolds in TT,104 the hyparchetype consists of four manu-
scripts – H, O, P and M. Only two of these manuscripts are included in
his apparatus, manuscripts H and M. Manuscript P is in a poor state of
preservation.105
Hyparchetype is characterised by f ive important interpolations. It
includes a correct reading in contrast to the rest of the tradition, though
this seems to have occurred by chance.106 Some readings in common with
the manuscripts of family reveal the contaminated character of this
hyparchetype. Manuscript M has striking individual readings.107
A correct reading of hyparchetype :
Interpolation:
Sall. 6 at quanto] atque quanto NMPO: atque H1 (que eras. H2)
Sall. 17 qui] quos N
This variant in the manuscripts of hyparchetype and in manuscript N
probably occurred by analogy with the following accusative exsules.

Hyparchetype (and linked to it manuscript N 108) has here a conscious
individual interpolation tantum – quantum which occurred because of the
repeated numeral bis.
Sall. 21 verum] veritatem
Omission:
Cic. 2 immoderatam] moderatam , im s. l. M2
Cic. 7 ante om. ZHMO109
Sall. 8 turpe] te
104 TT 350–352.
105 See below p. 94 f.
106 See Sall. 13.
108 See above p. 44 ff.
109 Manuscript P is not clear at this point.
Mistakes:
Cic. 7 concilio] concilium NOM: cilium H1, corr. H2: –ia F: conciliorum
Mp: consilio QHb
Cic. 7 tyrannos] tirannos HOMMp: tyranno B
Sall. 6 duxit] dixit s. l. u KMp: dixit NHOM
Sall. 10 otio] odio IHOPMp
Sall. 16 eluere] elucere E: eludere HOP
Sall. 18 pignora] pignera
LEHOP: cylonium K:
Sall. 19 obtinente] oriente K: obcontinente HM: continente P: tentante V :
optinente NI
In the hyparchetype con was probably written supra lineam. Manuscripts
H and M included con into the text, P exludedob and included con while
O kept the correct reading.
Readings of hyparchetype held in common with some manuscripts of

family :
Sall. 7 fortunatam Mp] fortunatam natam F2
V: fortunam natam L:
fortunam H1, corr. H2
The oldest manuscript H110 was written in the 10th century in the region of
Cologne. Other manuscripts of hyparchetype were familiar with it to a
greater or lesser degree. The manuscript includes few individual read-
ings, most of them omissions. 111 There are many mistakes revealing the
scribe’s carelessness but also, at the same time, the closeness of its source
to the archetype.
110 Harl. 2716, 10th cent. (Rhineland?); parchment, 255x213 (185x150), (ff. 74–77:
255x200) 77ff. (24 lines); A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the Brit-
ish Museum, vol. II (London 1808), 709; B. Munk Olsen, L ’étude des Auteurs
classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 213. H – Reynolds;
Kurfess; TT 63, 351; L – Winterbottom, de off.; Clark, marc., ligar., deiot.; l –
Clark, in cat.; ff. 24r – 29r.
111 Manuscript H contains corrections in a second hand revealing access to good
readings from family .
Omission:
Cic. 1 tua s. l. H2
Cic. 3 quasi vero] vero om., s. l . H 1: quasi vero, s. l. sed ita loqu … M 2
Cic. 4 acreverit, c s. l. H2
Cic. 4 esse opulentiam H]112 esse quin opulentiam Reynolds
This reading is probably an omission of manuscript H, rather than a cor-
rect reading, in contrast to the rest of the tradition.
Cic. 5 possunt inhonestissima] possunt inhonestima K: sunt post inhon-

estissima s. l. V, ne om. H1, s. l. H2
Cic. 5 omnium – potestatem om. H1, s. l. H2
Ald2LugdGrut
Mp: consilio QHb
Sall. 2 pro om. H1, s. l. H2
Sall. 5 quam om. H1, s. l. H2
Sall. 6 omnes] omnis B: om. H1, s. l. H2
ERV: fortunam natam
Sall. 9 abstinuerunt quam tu vir [a viris] om. N: s. l., in mg. iter., postea
del. H2
Sall. 9 es om., s. l. H2
Sall. 11 enim om. H1, s. l. H2
Sall. 13 sufficere] om. H1, s. l. H2: facere PO: efficere I
Sall. 15 experrecti] perrecti H1, ex s. l. H2: experti IV
Sall. 21 omnis om. H
Interpolation:
Sall. 6 hanc] in hanc (in del. H2) H1
Sall. 18 coniunxerat] convinxerat K: s. l. n H
Conjecture:
Sall. 8 minime] inpune H
Dittography is characteristic of the errors in manuscript H, pointing to

the scribe’s carelessness.

Mistakes:
Cic. 1 scirem] s. l. … ret H
Cic. 1 animi ex animo T: animi ex animus H2
Cic. 1 paulo ex paulus H
Cic. 3 oppugnatum d. t. T : obpugnatum BGEZH: oppugnatum oppug,
postea corr. Q
Cic. 4 virtus] virtutis H1 (corr. H2)V
The genetive at this point may have occured by analogy with the follow-
ing animi after amicitia.
Cic. 5 inmensa H
sillamque BIH
Sall. 1 inponitur H
Sall. 1 nitior H1, corr. H2
Sall. 4 Scipiones] scipione H
Sall. 6 similis] similes H1
Sall. 7 togatus] togatos Q: tegatus H1
Sall. 7 me me H
Sall. 7 impudicitia] inpudicitia H
Sall. 8 ut] in H1, s. l. ut H2
Sall. 9 rabie] rabies AFKMp: rabiae H
Sall. 9 compellarem] compellarer O: compellerem, s. l. a H2
Sall. 9 parare] parere, s. l. a H2
Sall. 10 unus ex uno K, ex unam H
Sall. 11 hercules K 2
E] hercule BX PMpV: ercule M: hercle HR: her -
cul N
Sall. 11 si ego si ego, postea corr. H
Sall. 11 abusi in ras. H
Sall. 12 vitia] om. M: vicia vicia postea corr. H113
Sall. 13 numquam] num Q: nusquam H
Sall. 13 in. m ante impudicus del. K2: inpudicus H
Sall. 13 immensae] inmerissae R: inmensae H
Sall. 16 hunc] hinc H
Sall. 22 istos, s del. H1
113 Cf. Sall. 7; 11.

Sall. 22 potes] potens B: ex potest H1

Sall. 22 commiserunt] commiserant H
Manuscripts H and O have some insignif icant errors in common within

hyparchetype :
Cic. 5 levissimus] letissumus H: leti sumus O
Cic. 6 impune] inpugne Mp: inpune HO
Cic. 6 etiamne 2 Zed. ven. ] etiam in
NERMMpV1: et tam I
Sall. 1 respondero] respondeo KNZH1O, corr. s. l. H2
Sall. 2 qui] quam HO: quod M: quia L
Sall. 3 velitari Lipsius] volutari rell.: voluptari K 1HOV: volutari possit I
HO
Sall. 14 quis] quasi HO
Manuscripts P114 and M115 belong to a later period.

There is no clear relationship between manuscripts H and P , though
they probably share a common source within hyparchetype . These
manuscripts share a number of striking errors, many of them interpo-
lations:
Cic. 1 apud om. K1, s. l. K2: aput H: ne aput P: an apud GrutRom
Sall. 6 in urbe] in urbem HP
M: nec quid HP: numquid : nunquid IL: nec-
que O: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp
Sall. 10 quamvis] quamquis HP
Sall. 12 verbis] vobis K1HP
Sall. 19 est his] est quae dico his P: est hiis V
Sall. 19 refelle unde qui modo ne] refelle qui dico unde quomodo ne H:
referte unde qui modo ne K1
114 Admont 363-I (Kurfess 383), 12 th cent. (Bavaria?); parchment, 264x190, 33 ff.;
B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1
(Paris 1982), 135–136; P – Kurfess, TT 351; ff. 29v–31r.
115 Clm 19474 (1980), 12 th cent. (Tegernsee); parchment, 149x1 12, 39 ff. (numer-
ation in 78 pages, blind lination with prickings); Catalogus codicum latinorum
Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, t. II, p. I (Muenchen 1874), 248 f.; B. Munk
1982), 238; M – Reynolds; Kurfess; TT 65, 351; ff. 1–8 (pages).
Qui (quae) dico was probably written in the margin of the source H and P
share in common. Thus both manuscripts included the scholium in the
text, though in a slightly different way in each case.
Manuscript P is only partly preserved.116 It includes a number of individ-

ual errors.
Omission:
Cic. 1 et om. P
Cic. 3 deorum om. P
Sall. 14 quis in (in in ras.) H: in om. B: om. P
Sall. 21 putas om. P
Interpolation:
Transposition:
Cic. 3 custodem te P
Sall. 8 egregium civem IP
Mistakes:
Sall. 9 mutuam om. QHb: metuam P
Sall. 12 apud] aput P
Sall. 12 apud] aput P
Sall. 13 pueriticia P
Sall. 13 ne] nec K1O: nix P
Sall. 14 partibus] artibus P
Sall. 19 tanquam NMpMHb: tamque K: tanque P: om. L
P shares two errors in common with certain manuscripts of family .

These seem to have occurred by chance:
Sall. 12 quid] quod PB
Sall. 14 non queat] nequeat P: non querat V
116 The text of manuscript P is interrupted at Cic. 3 cum legis Plautiae, and recom-
mences with Sall. 6. tui similes incolumes.
Manuscript H shares readings in common with manuscript M, the latter

being particularly contaminated. T ranspositions and interpolations are
typical of the errors shared by the two manuscripts. There are also a
number of omissions and a few mistakes.
On one occasion, manuscripts H and M share a correct reading in contrast
to the rest of the manuscripts of hyparchetype . Both do not accept a
word written supra lineam into the text:
: quaestuosus sump-
sed postea del. V
Transposition:
Cic. 1 ludibrio est] est ludibrio M: est ludibrio est H
Est was probably written supra lineam in the archetype and so H mis-
takenly included it twice. M, using manuscript H or another one related
to it as its source, wrongly deleted one est.
Sall. 5 opinione maiorum HM

Sall. 10 ipsa r. p. C? EP] ipsa p. r. DK RHM: ipsa p. et F: ipso p. r. A:
Sall. 18 novarum rerum NHM
Interpolation:
Sall. 1 qui] quam H: quem M
Omission:
Cic. 5 o om. RHM
Cic. 5 natam om. ZHM
Mistakes:
Cic. 3 condemnabas] condempnabas NIHbMH: condempnabatis, tis del.,
s s. l. EBas: condonabas V
Cic. 4 cui] qui HM1: cui s. l. M2
Cic. 4 contempnit NIHM
Cic. 5 modi] modo H1M, i corr. H2
Sall. 10 perbachatus BIQHM: debachatus N
Sall. 15 soporem] saporem HM
Sall. 19 obtinente] oriente K: obcontinente HM: continente P: tentante V
:
optinente NI
Manuscript M, with its strongly individual character , includes some

traces of contamination. There are two omissions, corresponding to the
readings of manuscripts of family :
Note the following interpolation:

Sall. 9 vero te] vero om. : enim te M: te vero N
The scribe of M had access to the manuscripts of family , where the
word vero was omitted. With both readings ( and ) before him, he in-
terpolated enim.
On three occasions M includes a correct reading in contrast to the other

manuscripts of hyparchetype :
Sall. 11 in MMpV] om. rell.: in vos om. Hb
Sall. 12 disserendum SHbM] discern– rell.
Interpolation:
Cic. 3 terentia] terentiana M1: na del. M2Mp: otrencia O
Cic. 3 aut1] autem M
Cic. 5 miseram] miseriam B: miseram ita, ita del. M
Sall. 3 quovis] quolibet M
Sall. 7 piget] pigeat M
Sall. 16 rei publicae] romani populi M
Sall. 20 rationibus] orationibus M1, corr. M2
Sall. 22 desine2] de ordine M
M includes a number of individual interpolations that were later accepted

in other manuscripts:
Cic. 1 praedae Eussner] perfidiae : locum M: perfidiae locum V1, locum
del. V2
Omission:
Cic. 1 reliquus] ereliquis R: reliqus M
Cic. 1 reperticius] repertius M: repertitius L
Cic. 3 consuluisti] consuisti M
Cic. 3 exaedificabat] edificabat AIM: hedificabat V

Cic. 3 insidias] sidias, in s. l. M
Sall. 1 ea] a M: eam V
The scribe of M obviously did not recognise the capital letter E, which
was probably in the form of an ornamented opening letter.
Sall. 6 vindicandis] vidicandis B: iudicandisex vindicandis Hb: vincandis

M: iudicantis V
Hyparchetype probably read nec quid. In manuscript M the letter c was
omitted.
Sall. 10 cessi] cesi O: om. M1, s. l. M2

Sall. 12 vitia] om. M: vicia vicia postea corr. H
Sall. 15 cuius om. M1, s. l. M2
Sall. 22 hoc2 om. BM
Sall. 22 tibi om. BM
Sall., 22 non quae] neque T: non ex nam K: non quia L: numquam E: non
Transposition:
Sall. 2 omnino se M
Sall. 5 in oblivionem venerint RM
Sall. 8 mentiri turpe] mentiri te : te mentiri M
Sall. 11 quicquam volui M: voluiante quicquam om., post vobis suppl. N
Sall. 13 turpia ipse corpori tuo M
Sall. 17 per quaesturam est reductus] reductus est post quaesturam M
Sall. 19 factus est QHbM
Mistakes:
Cic. 2 periuriis] periurans B: pervariis M
Cic. 6 dictatorem] oictatorem M
Cic. 7 optimates] obtimates M
Cic. 7 male dicis] maledictis A2 : malidicis M
Sall. 2 qui] quam HO: quod M:117 quia L
117 Cf. Sall. 9.


Sall. 9 qui] quae AFK1: quod K2M:118 om. P
Sall. 9 locrupletior M
Sall. 10 dissensionis] dissenssionis B: dissentionis M
Sall. 17 exsules] exules LEM
Sall. 18 illo grege] illorum grege B: illo gregi M
LEHPO: cylonium K:
Sall. 18 subsederant] om. A: subsederat M: n s. l. E
Sall. 19 traici] trahici KM: traci, i s. l. N: trahi B: tercii Hb
Sall. 19 tanquam NHbMpM: tamque K: tanque P: om. L
Sall. 20 eius Baiter] vetus : netus M
Sall. 21 ut opinor] hopinor, h del. M1
Manuscript O 119 is one of the oldest in the stemma. It was written in

South-Eastern France, in the 11th century. Reynolds did not however in-
clude it in his stemma probably because of its numerous errors and indi-
vidual interpolations. The scribe of manuscript O seems to have had ac-
cess to various sources.
On one occasion O has a correct reading in contrast to the other
Cic. 4 et O] ac : om. V
On two occasions O has a correct reading in contrast to the other manu-

scripts of hyparchetype :
Cic. 2 ipsam] istam HPM
Sall. 19 obtinente] oriente K: obcontinente HM: continente P: tentante V
:
optinente NI120
118 Cf. Sall. 2.

119 Bodl. Rawl. G. 43, 1 1th cent. (South-Eastern France); parchment, 182x125
(135x90), I +56 ff.; A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bod-
leian Library at Oxford by F . Madan, vol. III (Oxford 1895), 349 f.; B. Munk
1985), 338; Smalley 169. O – TT 351; ff. 52v–56r.
An error of manuscript O is close to the correct reading of family :

Sall. 7 neque ] necque O: ne quid
M: nec quid HP: numquid : nun-
quid IL: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp
Omission:
Cic. 1 magis om. O
Cic. 2 istam om. O
Cic. 5 cum om., s. l. O
Ald2LugdGrut
Cic. 7 admisit] amisit O
Cic. 7 de om. O
Sall. 1 iustius] istius TQ: iustis O
Sall. 2 et om. BO
Sall. 2 verum om. O
Sall. 3 ut ] om. O«
Sall. 5 est om. O
Sall. 5 omnique … invidia om. O
Sall. 8 sit om. O
Sall. 9 est om. O
Sall. 9 parare … mihi om. OHb
Sall. 10 cessi] cesi O: om. M1, s. l. M2
Sall. 10 retrahente me] me retrahente R: me om. O
Sall. 11 aut om. K1O
Sall. 11 adversarius] inimicus : om. O
Sall. 12 et om. O
Sall. 13 peccasti om. O
Sall. 13 iam] non E: om. O
Sall. 15 sibi quoque] sibi quaeque I: quoque sibi VR: quoque om. O
Sall. 15 esset … neque om. O
Sall. 17 facere om. O
Sall. 19 modeste … vastavit om. O
Sall. 20 neque piguit] que piguit om. O: pinguit N
Sall. 21 tu om. O
Sall. 22 in eos Mp: eos om. O
Interpolation:
Cic. 1 M.] marce IROMp: m. t. QZ:
Cic. 1 respondebo tibi] respondebo breviter tibi O
Cic. 1 marcus IOMp
Cic. 2 eam] iam T: ita O
Manuscript O is the only one from hyparchetype which read the ab-
breviation c. as consularis together with manuscripts N, Mp, Z, and the
manuscripts from hyparchetype .
Cic. 4 quid] quod B: quantum O

Manuscript O probably repeated the previous quantum.
Cic. 6 aut qui inpune parum quid fecisti verum O

Sall. 1 omni] in omni O
Sall. 4 gestae ante fuerint, a. f. del. O
Sall. 4 iam] om. QLHb: et iam O
Sall. 8 vitium] injicium O: vinum E1, s. l. vicium E2
Sall. 8 non sit his O
Sall. 10 c. sallusti] g. salustii EK 1, s. l. crispe K 2: c. s. H b: crispe s. Mp:
crispe salusti O
Sall. 11 rei publicae] romano populo O
Sall. 13 ne] nec K1O: nix P
Sall. 19 praetor] rector E: praetorem O
Sall. 19 Africam] affricam KIEHMpHb: in affricam O
Sall. 19 sestertio duodeciens cum] duodeciens om. I: cum sestertiorum
duodecies O
Sall. 21 c.] gai K: crispe O: om. N
121 See above p. 44, 60, 66 f.

Sall. 21 in aetate] in prima aetate B: in ea etate O

Sall. 22 vidi] vidimus O
Sall. 22 salustius tuus O: abistius N
Sall. 22 ut] om. E: et ut O
Conjecture:
Cic. 6 onerabis] honorabis I1OV, e s. l. I2
Cic. 6 quicquam] quicquid KO: non ante quicquam in mg. V
Sall. 5 accipiant] incipiant HbBO: incipiunt Q
Sall. 7 tunc] om. Hb: te Q: nunc O
Sall. 8 patrocinio] patrimonio O
Sall. 14 abiit] habuit K1O: habiit TV
Sall. 14 extrema] externa O: in extrema I
Sall. 15 quae] ut O
Sall. 18 quaestura] quaestio O
Sall. 18 quam] cum O
Transposition:
Cic. 1 esse praedae] perfidiae esse O
Cic. 4 novus homo O
Cic. 6 aut qui inpune parum quid fecisti verum O
Sall. 1 dicendi onus imponitur] onus imponitur dicendi O
Sall. 2 iam et ipsius] et etiam ipsius Hb: et ipsius iam O
Sall. 3 inimicitiis crescit O
Sall. 4 ortus salusti O
Sall. 9 se mulieres QLOV122
Sall. 19 reliquas possessiones] reliquas possessionis B: possesiones reli-
quis O
Sall. 20 repente om. Hb: repente rationibus O
Sall. 20 tuorum maiorum O
Sall. 22 uti isto O
Sall. 22 inimicum velle O
Mistakes:
Cic. 1 quam] que O
Cic. 1 deffendit O
Cic. 1 affricani NKBILHbZEMpHP: om. R: affricam O
Cic. 2 funestram O

Cic. 3 Terentia] terentiana M1: na del. M2Mp: otrencia O

Cic. 4 obicio redde] obtio rede O
Cic. 4 infinito sumptu] quo sumptu infinito I: infinito sumpto O
Cic. 5 immo] inimo O
Cic. 5 pertubata O
Cic. 5 erant] erat Q: erunt O
Cic. 5 lege] lego O
Cic. 6 cicero] c. O
Cic. 7 tandem] titandem Mp: tandem locum tandem O
Cic. 7 faves] funes O
Sall. 1 inloto] in loco BO: illoto NIEMMp
Sall. 1 incidem O
Sall. 4 nominis] hominis O
Sall. 4 turpitu O: turpidinis N
Sall. 6 confiteor] fateor O
Sall. 7 obpressi O
Sall. 7 illud] aliud B: illut O
Sall. 7 tui] an O
Sall. 8 ducis AK2
] dicis FK1 EOMp
Sall. 9 compellarem] compellarer O: compellerem s. l. a H2
Sall. 10 furore O
Sall. 10 reverti] revera O
Sall. 10 conferantur O
Sall. 11 privatum O
Sall. 11 quantum] quaquantum T: quantum quantum O: quantumc Mp
Sall. 11 nutrivererunt O: timuerunt I
Sall. 11 numquam volui] nunquam volui P: numqui volui O: volui num-
quam Mp
Sall. 12 petenti] petendi O: paenitenti? Mp
Sall. 12 eseset O
Sall. 12 habuit O: semper habui V
Sall. 13 opotuit O
Sall. 13 tu si qua tu in O
Sall. 13 patienda] patientia N1: facienda BO

Sall. 13 dixisses O: non duxisses in ras. I
Sall. 14 tirocinio] tyrocinio KBEMPRQ: arocinio O
Sall. 14 discessit] stetit Hb: dissecit O: discescit P
Sall. 14 innoceres O
Sall. 16 illut O
Sall. 16 recitate O
Sall. 16 reliquas O
This mistake occurred by analogy with quas.
Sall. 18 colomiis O
Sall. 19 sint] sunt fO
Sall. 19 quod] quos O
Sall. 21 senitorem i del., s. l. a O
Sall. 21 beli O
Manuscripts O and P probably had the same source, as suggested by at

least two readings:
: quaestuosus sumptus
Hb: quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaestiosius sumptus Q: quaestus idem
sumptus OPH 2: quaestus stipendia sumptus I: ad sumptus add. sed
postea del. V
It seems clear that idem sumptus was an interlinear explanation or a mar-
ginal scholium, accepted by O and P into the text without changes.123
Sall. 13 sufficere] om. H1: s. l. H2: facere OP: efficere I
Manuscripts O and P include another common mistake:

Cic.3 delibuta TAld] debilitata rell.: debilitate N: debelitata B: dedita R:
debitata LOP1: delibitata P2
These four manuscripts, non gemelli, stem from hyparchetype . Ma-

nuscript H includes readings in common with the rest of the group, but
cannot be a protograph as it also includes numerous individual readings.
123 See above p. 39, 58, 67, 81, 96.

P and O share readings in common. As shown in Reynolds’ stemma, M

is furtherst from the others. It shares common readings only with manu-
script H.
2.4.2.2.3 Manuscript Mp (belongs to hyparchetype )
Manuscript Mp124 (written in the late 12th century or early in the 13th) has
been published here for the f irst time. It belongs to hyparchetype , but
does not belong either to hyparchetype or to hyparchetype . It includes
a number of errors common to other manuscripts from hyparchetype .
It is seriously contaminated. In some significant places where families
and split, manuscript Mp accepted the readings of family .
Manuscript Mp includes omissions, transpositions, interpolations
and conjectures. Some of the conjectures are signif icant as they show
new readings of the text.
Interpolation:
Cic. 1 diripi] ab eo diripi Mp: deripi N
Cic. 6 verbis tuis molestissimis insectabere Mp
Cic. 7 hac] hac parte, parte del. Mp: hoc V1, corr. in mg. V2
Sall. 1 verbis] turpissimis verbis Mp
Sall. 4 nobis] a nobis Mp: vobis I: de nobis «Reynolds
Sall. 9 abstinuerunt] non abstinuerunt Mp
Sall. 14 p.] publii Mp: m. L
Sall. 19 qui modo] quo modo NEP: quidem modo Mp: quommodo B
Sall. 22 eos1] in eos Mp
Sall. 22 eos2] in eos Mp: eos om. O
Conjecture:
Cic. 1 se ipse] se ipsum EV: sese MpAldLugdBasGrutRomVen
Cic. 7 placent] parent, in mg. placent Mp
The scholium was written in the same hand as varia lectio.
Sall. 1 in] tum Mp

Sall. 1 id] huic Mp
124 Montpellier, École de Médecine de Montpellier, Ms. 413, 12th –13th cent.; parch-
ment, 2 colomns à 40 lines; Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques
publiques des départements, t. 1 (Paris 1849), 449 f.; ff. 5r–7r.
Sall. 2 quis] quibus MpV

Sall. 3 haec] om. E: s. l. K2: enim Mp
Sall. 3 qualis] quot Mp
Sall. 5 meis] nostris Mp
Sall. 9 inuasisti om. : evasisti Mp
Sall. 13 rei publicae] p. r. Q: romano populo Mp
Sall. 13 tui potestatem] tuae potestatis Mp
Sall. 14 ipsius] illius Mp
Sall. 15 viris VK2] vestris : uris R: nostris Mp: om. Q: vestries I1, corr.
vobis I2
Sall. 16 viderem internas Mp
Sall. 22 quidem] quicquam Mp
Omission:
Cic. 2 videlicet] videt Mp
Cic. 4 tantum om. Mp
Cic. 6 te] ne T1, corr. T2: om. Mp: se N
sillamque BIH
Cic. 7 suis om. Mp
Sall. 1 aut si] si aut NA2 HbZ: aut om. MpV
Sall. 1 huic om. Mp
Sall. 3 vir om. Mp
Sall. 8 est s. l. T: om. Mp
Sall. 11 neque] ne, que s. l. Mp
Sall. 12 neque] ne, que s. l. Mp
These last two examples reveal a certain consistency in the errors in
manuscript Mp.
Sall. 13 facere om. Mp

Sall. 16 tibi om. Mp
Sall. 19 neque1 om. Mp
Sall. 19 tantum hic] hic om. Mp: hic tantum I
Sall. 19 quidem om. Mp
Transposition:
Cic. 2 paelex matrix Mp
Cic. 5 parere crudelitati tuae] crudelitate tua parere E: tuae parere cru-
delitati I: parere tuae crudelitati Mp: parare c. t. H1, e corr. H2
Sall. 1 dicendi mihi Mp
Sall. 2 aures et ipsius Mp

Sall. 9 inusitata ista Mp
Sall. 10 unus fortunam Mp
Sall. 11 numquam volui] nunquam volui P: numqui volui O: volui num-
quam Mp
Sall. 16 confiteri adulterium Mp
Sall. 17 quidem ne senator Mp
Sall. 22 tuis moribus Mp
Mistakes:
Cic. 3 extollunt] extolluit Z: exextollunt Mp
Cic. 4 pecunia] pugna E: peccunia Mp
Cic. 5 mercenarius Mp
Mp: consilio QHb
Cic. 7 tandem] titandem Mp: tandem locum tandem O
Sall. 1 initium] iniciam Mp
Sall. 2 mentitum esse videatur] mentitus esse videar QHbVK2«: mentitum
Sall. 3 illam Ald in mg.,LugdBasVen] aliam GrutRom, Ven in mg.: alio-
rum Mp: sed vitam aliam I
Sall. 4 omnium] omnes VMp
Sall. 4 commendavit] commendaverunt V: commendarit Mp
Sall. 6 gerundis] gerendis Mp
Sall. 7 culpas] culpas s. l. e V: culpes Mp
Sall. 10 c. sallusti] g.salustii EK 1, s. l. crispe K 2: c. s. H b: crispe s. Mp:
crispe salusti O
Sall. 10 tanti] tanta Mp
Sall. 10 mercenarium KMp
Sall. 11 quantum] quaquantum T: quantum quantum O: quantumc Mp
Sall. 11 volui] valui, o s. l. Mp
Sall. 13 crispe s. Mp125
Sall. 14 at] ab Mp
Sall. 14 hercules
lis pedes R
125 Cf. Sall. 10.

Sall. 16 valuissem Mp
Sall. 18 vitiorum] vitiosorum B: viciciorum Mp
LEHPO: cylonium K:
Sall. 19 at] ast Mp
Sall. 19 pascicitur Mp: pasciscitur B: pascitur E
Within hyparchetype , manuscript Mp tends to hyparchetype and to

hyparchetype . Manuscript Mp includes a number of errors common to
manuscripts R and E:
Cic. 2 M.] marcum RMp
Cic. 3 faciebatis s. l. s (=faciebas) E: faciebas Mp
Sall. 9 tibi om. RMp
Sall. 9 domi] domui AERMMpV
Hyparchetype is represented by a greater number of manuscripts than

the other hyparchetypes. As a result there are more errors common to the
various manuscripts of this hyparchetype:
Cic. 1 M.] marce IRMpO: m. t. QZ:
Cic. 1 marcus IMpO
Cic. 2 perdidicisti] prodidisti Hb: perdidisti QPMp
Cic. 3 Terentia] terentiana M1Mp: na del. M2Mp: otrencia O
Cic. 4 L.] M. : Marci OMp
Cic. 7 tyrannos] tirannos Mp: tyranno B
Sall. 6 vixissent] venissent CDMpH1P
Sall. 8 querar] loquar IQH bO: s. l. et loquar H 2P2: loquar querar
Mp
Loquar was probably written supra lineam in the archetype. Mp accepted

both readings into the text.126
Sall. 10 otio] odio IHOPMp

N
MpV: uxorem
nostram K1
Sall. 16 umquam N
om.
Sall. 19 somnio AFK 2TC2DS] somno K 1XEHBP: sonnio NI: sonno O:
Sall. 21 parat. is] paratus
The following are correct readings of Mp shared with other manuscripts

of hyparchetype :
ERV: fortunam natam
Sall. 11 in MMpV] om. rell.: in vos om. Hb: nos QL
: quaestuosus sump-
sed postea del. V127
Several readings show that the scribe of manuscript Mp had access to

certain manuscripts of hyparchetype :
Sall. 8 an ulla] annulla QMp
runt V
QHbMp
126 See above p. 38, 62, 69, 101.

127 See above p. 39, 58, 67, 81, 96, 104.
The “horizontal” influence of some manuscripts of family is evident on

a number of occasions. Manuscript Mp includes two correct readings
common to manuscripts of :
Sall. 20 sis] om. : recte Mp
Manuscript Mp includes errors common to manuscripts of , especially

to manuscripts of hyparchetype :
Sall. 6 duxit] dixit s. l. u KMp: dixit NHMO
Sall. 7 tu] te BMp
Sall. 9 rabie] rabies AFKMp: rabiae H
Sall. 15 vos s. l. bis K2: vobis Mp
Sall. 16 non om. AMp
Sall. 18 in om. TDMp: quater B
Sall. 20 hercules] hercle KMp: hercules A, es in ras.: hercule NLV
In the following two readings Mp does not follow the text of manuscripts
of , but their influence still remains a possibility:
Sall. 15 post adeptus add. secutus est (estom. T) V: adeptus sequitus est
Mp
In conclusion, the collation of these 23 medieval manuscripts conf irms

Reynolds’ stemma with a number of corrections and additions. The new
manuscripts, added to the stemma here, are significant as they not only re-
veal a broader transmission field, but also anticipate a number of impor-
tant conjectures made by the editors of the later editions (see chapter 3).
3.1 Authorship of the invectives 111
Chapter 3
The problem of authorship and the history of edited
invectives (incunabula and 16th–20th centuries)
3.1 Authorship of the invectives
3.1.1 Authorship of the invectives in antiquity
The question of the attribution of the invectives is a complicated one;

it is important therefore at the outset to note that the signif icance of the
invectives is not diminished if they are not attributed to Sallust and
Cicero. On the contrary, if they can be shown to be standard rhetorical ex-
ercises for their time, their importance for the historian and philologist
attempting to understand the role and forms of rhetoric in ancient Rome
may be even greater.
Quintilian provides the researcher with external evidence. He twice

quotes from the invective against Cicero:
Quid? Non Sallustius derecto ad Ciceronem, in quem ipsum dicebat, usus
est principio, et quidem protinus: ‘graviter et iniquo animo maledicta tua
paterer, M.Tulli’, sicut Cicero fecerat in Catilinam: ‘quo usque tandem
abutere’?1
How’s that? Did Sallust not commence his speech against Cicero by stat-
ing directly “It would be hard for me to put up with your abuse, Marcus
Tullius, and it would bother me”, as Cicero had done against Catilina, de-
claring, “until when will you mistreat”?
… Etiam in personae fictione accidere quidam idem putaverunt, ut… apud
Sallustium in Ciceronem ‘o Romule Arpinas’ …2
Some people thought the same device could occur infictio personae, as …
Sallust does against Cicero “Oh Romulus of Arpinum” …
1 Quint. 4, 1, 68. Quoted from Cic. 1.

2 Quint. 9, 3, 89. Quoted from Cic. 7. Quintilian proceeds to quote from the same
fragments of Cicero’s poetry as we find in the invectives, cf. Quint. 9, 4, 41 and
11, 1, 24. Cf. also Iuv. Sat. X 122. Cf. also Quint. 11, 1, 24 and Cic. 7 concerning
Cicero’s relationship to Minerva and Jupiter. See p. 158–159.
112 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives
In Servius’ transmission of his commentary to V irgil’s Aeneas, one

manuscript3 also quotes from the invective against Cicero:
Nefas esse credi dictum est de T ullio, [quod convicium a Sallustio Cice-
ronis inimico natum est, qui de illo inquit: “filia matris paelex”].4
It is – so they say – outrageous to believe about Cicero [that the “daughter
was a rival to her mother”. This was Sallust’ s slander, following on from
the start of his quarrel with his enemy Cicero.]
The ancient tradition thus attributed the invective against Cicero to Sal-
lust, something that is important in itself for our understanding of ancient
rhetoric. For later scribes and editors, Quintilian’ s opinion proved to
be one of the main ar guments for the attribution of the invective to Sal-
lust.
The second invective however was never attributed to Cicero – per-
haps considered below him – and so the question of its authenticity has
rarely been discussed as will be seen below. The grammarian Diomedes
attributed the invective against Sallust to a certain Didius:
In passivo autem declinatur edor ederis estur; participium praeteritum
esus. Item ambedor et comedor … de cuius perfecto ambigitur apud ve-
teres, comestus an comesus et comesurus. Sed Didius ait de Sallustio
‘comesto patrimonio’ …5
In the passive voice edor is declined edor – ederis – estur and its past par-
ticiple is esus. The same is true of ambedor and comedor … the perfect
form of this last verb is ambiguous in the Ancients, rendered comestus, or
comesus and comesurus. But as Didius said concerning Sallust: “inherit-
ance consumed” …
This attribution has not however been generally accepted. 6 For the most
part, the text of the second invective was transmitted along with the ifrst,
and so, in the earliest manuscripts, we find it referred to as “the invective
of Cicero against Sallust”.
3 Manuscript D (Paris. Bibl. Nat. 7965, see Servius ed. by G. Thilo and H. Hagen,
v. I, 1881, XCIff.). Cf. Serv. In Aen. VI, 623 (ed. by G. Thilo and H. Hagen, .vII,
1884, 88). In his first two editions of the invectives ( 11914, 21950) the passage
from Servius in testimonia is given by Kurfess in quadrate brackets, while in the
folowing editions (31958, 41962, 51970) the same passage is given without quad-
rate brackets. It should however in any case be clear that as this is a doubtful pas-
sage in Servius, it cannot be used as evidence of a reference to the text of the
invective. Cf. Ernout 53, Pasoli 1989 (see App. Ed. p. 203), 23 f., Pasoli 1974,
169.
4 Quoted from Cic. 2.
5 Art. Gram. I. In: Gram. Lat. (ed. Keil) I 387, 6. Quoted from Sall. 20.
6 There are some exceptions though. Thus see e.g. Schmidt 1972, 1517.
Also of interest as far as the question of authorship of the invectives

is concerned is the fact that a passage from the invective against Cicero
is clearly similar to a passage from the second letter to Caesar and to a
passage from the rhetorician of the late Augustan period Rutilius Lupus,
who gives a Latin translation of a lost passage by Lycurgus:7
Cic. 5: immo vero homo levissimus, supplex inimicis, amicis contume-
liosus, modo harum, modo illarum partium, f idus nemini, levissimus
senator, mercennarius patronus, cuius nulla pars corporis a turpitudine
vacat, lingua vana, manus rapacissimae, gula immensa, pedes fugaces:
quae honeste nominari non possunt, inhonestissima.
But on the contrary this man is totally unreliable, deferential with his en-
emies, abusive to his friends, one moment he supports one side, at the next
the other, loyal to nobody, a thoroughly undependable senator, a patron for
a fee; there is no part of his body that does not cause distaste: his conceited
tongue, his rapacious hands, his elephantine gullet, his scampering feet;
those parts which cannot gracefully be referred to, are in his case most es-
pecially disgraceful.
Epist. ad Caes. ii 9, 2: An L. Domiti magna vis est,quoius nullum mem-
brum a flagitio aut facinore vacat? Lingua vana, manus cruentae, pedes
fugaces, quae honeste nominari nequeunt inhonestissima.
Does Lucius Domitius have great power? He has no member that does not
cause shame or offence: his conceited tongue, his bloody hands, his scam-
pering feet; that or gan which cannot be considered respectable, is in his
case most extraordinarily disgraceful.
Rutil. Schemata lexeos i 18: M «. Hoc schema singulas res
separatim disponendo et suum cuique proprium tribuendo magnam ef-
ficere utilitatem et inlustrem consuevit. L ycurgi: ‘Cuius omnes corporis
partes ad nequitiam sunt appositissimae: oculi ad petulantem lasciviam,
manus ad rapinam, venter ad aviditatem, membra, quae non possumus
honeste appellare, ad omne genus corruptelae, pedes ad fugam, prorsus ut
aut ex hoc vitia aut ipse ex vitiis ortus videatur.’
M « (Dividing). The device used to considerable gain and merit for
the distribution of separate things and the allotting of each to its own. As
in Lycurgus: ‘all parts of his body are most suited for wrongdoing: his eyes
for impertinent wantonness, his hands for grabbing, his belly for greed, his
members, which cannot be considered respectable are suitable for all
forms of corruption, his feet for scampering, indeed it is difficult to ascer-
tain whether the faults were born from him or he from his faults.’
Thus both the invective and the letter incorporate this passage from Ru-
tilius, all be it in a modif ied form. In all probability the passage from
Rutilius was used as an exemplum in the rhetorical schools from the
7 See Nisbet 1958; Vretska 1961, II 43–46; Schindel 1980b, 86–92.

Augustan period. The passage in the invective would seem to be a quo-

tation by memory of this text, learnt by heart at some earlier stage. It is
therefore evident that the author of the invective against Cicero had ac-
cess to this particular letter to Caesar, or on the contrary, as suggested by
Syme, the author of Epist. II copied the invective.8 It is also clear that the
author of the invective (whether he be the same as the author of Epist. II
or not) had access to Rutilius’ (or even to L ycurgus’) text. As Nisbet
argues, it cannot be excluded that even Sallust himself might imitate
Lycurgus or employ a commonplace turn of phrase. 9 In any case both
these ‘Sallustian’ passages must be derived from the lost speech of
Lycurgus.
There is no further evidence in antiquity concerning the authorship of
the invectives.
3.1.2 Question of the authorship of the invectives

in the 15th and 16th centuries
The first reference to the invectives in modern times seems to be in the

research of a humanist from Padua, Sicco Polenton. 10 In 1413 he added
both invectives to his collection of fourteen of Cicero’ s speeches. 11
Twenty-five years later he issued an essay on Famous Latin Authors, 12
the earliest history of Roman literature in modern times, where he con-
sidered the relationship between Sallust and Cicero. Both invectives
were considered by Sicco to be authentic.13
In all the earliest editions of Sallust the invectives are regarded as clearly
authentic; whenever any kind of analysis was attempted, it was in order
8 Cf. Syme 1964, 349.

9 Nisbet 1958, 32.
10 See Schindel 1980a, 90 f.; Ullman 1955, 56 ff.
11 Asconius Pedianus: Commentarii in orationes Ciceronis, ed. Hieronymus Squar-
zaficus. Venezia, ca. 1477; appendix: Sicconis Polentoni Super decem orationes
Ciceronis, super quattuor invectivas in Catilinam, super invectivas inter Sallus-
tium et Ciceronem. Patavii ex aedibus solitae habitationis 1413. Cf. Schindel
1980a, 102.
12 Sicconis Polentoni Scriptorum Illustrium Latinae Linguae Libri XVIII, ed. by
B. L. Ullman, Rome, 1928 (edited in 1437, cf. Introduction XXXI–XXXIV).
13 Sicconis Polentoni Scriptorum Illustrium Latinae Linguae Libri XVIII, ed. by
B. L. Ullman, Rome, 1928; 368 f., 449 f. See Schindel 1980a, 90.
to place the content of the invectives into the context of Cicero’ s and Sal-
lust’s lives and in particular in the context of their private enmity.14
In the biography of Sallust written by the Florentine humanist Pietro
Crinito and published alongside the edition by Aldus in Venice in 1509,15
we find the first attempts at criticism of the authorship of the work.16 How-
ever, Crinito concluded that the invectives were indeed written by Sallust
and Cicero.
The edition of Sallust, printed in Venice in 1513, 17 came out with a new
commentary, that of Josse Bade. This commentary to the whole Sallust’s
corpus, written in 1504, was widely acclaimed and was reprinted several
times in Venice, Paris, Lion, and Basel up until the end of the 16 th cen-
tury.18 It does not refer however to the problem of authenticity , unlike a
later edition which come out slightly later , also by Bade. This new sep-
arate edition of the invectives which was published in Paris in 1532, with
a historical commentary by François Du Bois,19 added an argumentum to
the invective against Cicero, where François Du Bois tries to explain the
difficulties due to the ambiguities in both the speeches. He ar gues that
both these speeches were declaimed spontaneously in the Senate, without
any written preparation. The invective against Sallust was not written by
Cicero himself according to Bade, but rather by his secretary , thus ex-
plaining its imperfections, at least compared to his other speeches.
In 1535 the invectives were printed in Paris with a commentary by Jam-

metius Textor,20 who considered both invectives authentic and referred
this mutual abusing to the time of the trial of Clodius in 52 BC, where
Sallust was Cicero’s opponent.21
14 Cf. Hier. Adv. Jovin. 1, 48. See Schindel 1980a, 91.

15 See App. p. 196. On this edition see also below p. 132.
16 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae. Eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino. Eius-
dem oratio contra M. T . Ciceronem. M. T . Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum
Sallustium … Venetiis in Aedibus Aldi, et Andreae Asulani soceri mense Aprili
MDIX. [1509]; 7. See also Schindel 1980a, 92 f.
17 C. Crispi Sallustii Catilina et Jugurthina cum reliquis collectaneis ab Ascensio;
utcunque explanatis; hic suum capit finem diligenti recognitione. Venetiis [1513].
18 See Renouard, 11908; v. I, 152; v. III, 227–242, 472.
19 C. Crispi Sallustii in M. T. Ciceronem Oratio: et Ciceronis in eundem Respon-
sio: cum F. Sylvii Ambiani Commentariis. Apud Iodocum Badium Ascensium.
Parisiis, [1532]. See Renouard, 11908; v. III, 243.
20 See App. p. 197.
22 that included,
In Venice in 1546 there appeared a further edition of Sallust
in addition to the works of Sallust, Cicero’ s speeches against Catilina,
Catilina’s purported responses to Cicero and a speech by Catilina against
Porcius Latro. The edition also included thorough and detailed commen-
taries to the invectives written by François Du Bois and Heinrich Glarean
(the latter’s commentary having been composed in 1538). Glarean argues
that the only firm basis for considering the invective to be genuine is the
authority of Quintilian, adding, however , that it would appear most un-
likely that such a speech might have been delivered in the Senate.
In 1553 the Florentine Hellenist Pietro Vettori decisively refuted Sallust’s

authorship of the invective against Cicero. 23 His edition of Sallust in
1576 does not include invectives.24
Shortly thereafter in 1555 the Italian humanist Sebastiano Corrado25
posed the question of the authorship of the invectives. Corrado accepted
the ancient view that the invective against Sallust was not by Cicero,
and also denied Sallust’ s authorship of the invective against Cicero. 26
Corrado wrote a work on Cicero where he commented and explained
dubious and dif ficult passages from Cicero’ s texts. 27 Quaestura is
22 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, et de Bello Iugurthino historiae; in

M. T. Ciceronem oratio. M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Sallustium Responsio. Eiusdem
Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes IIII. Porcii Latronis Declamatio in L. Catili-
nam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Sallustii. Venetiis, [1546].
23 Petri Victorii Variarum Lectionum Libri XXV, Florence, 1553. Lib. XV, cap. III,
pp. 370–373: Orationes duas pugnantes inter se quae nunc Sallustio et M. T ullio
tribuuntur videri eorum auctorum non esse (quoted from Strasbour g edition in
1609). Cf. Schindel, 1980a, 94, Schindel 1980b, 3.
24 Sallustii Crispi coniuratio Catilinae et bellum Iugurthinum. Florentiae apud
Iunctas [1576]. Cf. Schindel 1980a, 94.
25 We do not know much about Corrado. He founded a cathedra of Ancient Litera-
ture in Bologna in 1545, died in 1556 in Reggio, where he lived out the last year
of his life. He edited Cicero’s Brutus and Ad Familiares. Cf. Baur 1829.
26 Justus Lipsius and Gerhard Johann Vossius were of the same opinion, see below
p. 118 and 120.
27 Corradi S. Quaestura partes duae quarum altera de Ciceronis vita et libris item
de ceteris Ciceronibus agit, altera Ciceronis Libros permultis locis, emendat
numquam antea extra Italiam … Sax. Lipsiae apud Joannem W endlerum A.
MDCCLIIII. [ 41754]; 85. ‘Quaestura sive Egnatius’ was edited f irst in 1555 in
Bologna, later in 1566 in Basel, and in 1667 in Leyden. On the confusion with
another work of Corrado ‘In M. T. Ciceronem quaestura’, issued in 1537, which
included some critical proposals on Cicero’ s works, see Schindel,1980a, 103,
f. 25.
written as a dialogue with three participants: Egnatius (in all probabil-

ity Corrado’ s teacher from V enice), Pierius V alerianus and Corradus
himself. This discussion on the authorship of Sallust’ s invectives in-
volved Egnatius and Corradus. Egnatius ar gued that Sallust declaimed
a speech in the Senate against Cicero, which was followed by Cicero’ s
reply, his invective against Sallust. Corradus on the other hand doubted
the genuineness of both these texts. Egnatius in turn agreed that the
Latin style was less impressive than might be expected, but he defended
the traditional point of view , appealing to those authorities that con-
sidered it to be genuine. Corradus then rallies his ar guments with an
extensive monologue on the question of authorship. 28 Quintilian, he
retorts, was either mistaken or engaged in f lattering some friend of
his, most probably an orator.29 He referred to Seneca the Elder, who pro-
vides evidence that in the f irst century of our era there were many
orators who wrote speeches pro and contra Cicero.30 His final judgment
is categorical:
Ut enim mihi videntur alicuius declamatoris et unius, et eiusdem fortasse
Latronis dictionem, ita nihil minus, quam Sallustii, vel Ciceronis genus di-
cendi referre, vel etiam redolere …
[In my opinion these speeches were written by one and the same orator ,
possibly by Latro, as there is nothing here that could refer to or even re-
mind one of Sallust’s or indeed of Cicero’s turn of phrase …]
Corradus sums up his ar guments: the speech against Cicero could not
have been written by Sallust as (1) some phrases do not suit Sallust’ s
style, including words and turns of phrase that would have been com-
pletely alien to Sallust, or others that would never have been used in the
Senate and so on; (2) the text’s rhythm feels raw, with insufficient finesse,
something that can not be considered the case with Sallust’ s standard
somewhat archaising style; (3) the text does not seem to begin in a rea-
sonable way, commencing with the rhetorically weak respondebo tibi ,
but nor does it continue as might logically be expected.31
28 Corrado, Op. cit. 85–87.

29 “et Quintilianus mihi vel deceptus, vel alicui declamatori amico, qui scripsisset
orationes illas, assentatus esse videatur”.
30 Cf. Contr. 1 pr. 11; 3 pr. 13–15; 7, 2; Suas. 6; 7.
31 Corrado, Op. cit. 88–89.
Later, in a full edition of Sallust with a commentary ,32 printed in Chris-

tophe Plantin’s publishing house in Antwerp in 1564, the editor refers to
Quintilian as proof of the authenticity of the text.33
The seventh of the eight lectures given by Justus Lipsius at the University
of Jena between 1572 and 1574 considered the topic of authorship of the
invectives.34 An orator not without wit (rabula haud plane ineptus) wrote
them as an exercise in style, he claimed. 35 Lipsius did not want to repro-
duce either Vettori’s or Corrado’s arguments and thus proposed his own
which might be summarised as follows: (1) the tonality of the speeches
was not appropriate either for the Senate or for the Roman Court, and thus
they could not have been delivered there; (2) there are no other references
in Cicero’s works to his enmity with Sallust apart from these invectives;
(3) Quintilian could be mistaken exactly as Priscianus was mistaken
in his attribution of the Rhetorica ad Herennium to Cicero; (4) as far as
the manuscript attribution is concerned, on many occasions false attribu-
tions had been presented as authentic. 36 His conclusion is that neither of
the speeches could have been written by their purported authors.
Plantin’s publishing house in Antwerp issued a commentary to Sallust by

Louis Carrion in 1579.37 The commentary included two books of critical
notes by Johannes Rivius, conjectures by Aldus Manutius, corrections
and notes by Cyprian Popma, and scholia by Carrion. Cyprian Popma
commented on both invectives, considering both of them to be spurious
(commentary of 1572).
Carrion in his preface to the letters addressed to Caesar , which was
prepared for this edition, refers to the authorship of both invectives.
Neither the letters, nor the invective against Cicero should, in his
opinion, be attributed to Sallust.
32 C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum … Fragmenta

Historiarum C. Sallustii Crispi… ab Aldo Manutio, Pauli F. Collecta … Antver-
piae, 1564. See Voet v. 5, 1982, 2019–2021.
33 Quint. 4, 1, 68. See above p. 111 f.
34 Lipsius J. Orationes Octo. Jena, 1726, Oratio VII, 105. Cf. Schindel, 1980a, , 95f.
35 Lipsius, Op. cit. 105.
36 Ibid. 106 f.
37 In Sallustii Crispi Catilinam, et Iugurtham, in Historiarum lib. VI a Ludovico
Carrione collectos, auctos, et restitutos. Antverpiae, 1579. See: Voet v. 5, 1982,
2021–2023.
A new edition appeared in Basel in 1590. 38 A full commentary by Gla-

rean and new scholia by Jacobus from Bonn were added to the invec-
tive against Cicero. Jacobus’ scholia were made with reference to pre-
viously unused manuscripts, as is noted on the cover page:Omnia haec,
ad authentica exemplaria collata, et variis lectionibus expolita . None
of the scholia to the invective seem however to be of particular import-
ance.
It would seem then that from early on the authenticity of both the invec-
tives was called into question. Though V ettori’s and Corrado’ s ar gu-
ments did not influence Sallust’s editors in the short term, increasingly
editors had to consider the implications of the question of authenticity .
In cases where the authenticity of both the invectives was called into
question, commentators, such as Lipsius, relied on ar guments from the
historical context and also from style. It is hard, however , to avoid the
conclusion that they objected to the content of the invectives also. How
could a Sallust, or , even more so, a Cicero, use such trivial ar gumen-
tation?
3.1.3 Polemics on the authorship of the invectives in the 17th century
Helias Putsch’ s Leiden edition of 1602 39 and Jan Gruter ’s Frankfurt

edition of 1607 40 were the most widely respected up until the middle
of 18 th century. They seem to have been cautious and conservative on
the question of authenticity . They include commentaries on the author-
ship of the invectives, but do not themselves express any doubt as to the
genuineness of the invective against Cicero, placing Quintilian’ s quo-
tation immediately after the title. They do however consider the other in-
vective ( quae Cicer oni falso tribuitur ) and the letters to Caesar to be
spurious.
This same view is held by John Philipp Pareus in his posthumous
Frankfurt edition of Sallust in 1649 (reprinted in 1676), 41 then later by
38 C. Crispi Salustii Historiae, De coniuratione Catilinae. Ad haec Salustii oratio in

M.Tullium Ciceronem. Basileae, 1590.
39 See App. p. 200.
40 C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant ex recognitione Iani Gruteri acce-
dunt; Francofurti, 1607.
41 See App. p. 200 f. Cf. Schindel 1980a, 96 and 105.
Daniel Crispinus in his Paris edition of 167442 and by Samuel Grosser in

his Dresden and Leipzig edition of 1699.43
In the edition of Sallust with fragments from ancient historians which

appeared in Leiden in Elzevir publishing house in 163444 there are no com-
mentaries, and the question of authenticity is resolved as in Putsch and
Gruter,45 i.e. the invectives are considered to have been written by Sallust
and Cicero46 whilst the letters to Caesar are considered spurious.47
A further edition of Sallust was prepared by Claude Saumaise in Leiden

in 1645. 48 Saumaise followed the traditional attribution of the invective
against Cicero to Sallust, considering the other invective and the letters
to be spurious.49
A new edition of Sallust appeared in Leiden in 1649, 50 revised and
emended by Anthony Thysius. The invective against Sallust was not

51
included. Following on from Pietro Crinito’ s biography of Sallust 52 an-

other text about Sallust excerpted from Gerhard Johann V ossius’ work ‘De
Historicis Latinis’, written in 1627 and containing some arguments against
the authenticity of the invectives,53 is presented in the preface to the book.
The editions of 1649 and 1677 in Leiden 54 also consider the invective
against Sallust to be spurious.
42 See App. p. 201. Cf. Schindel 1980a, 96 and 105.

43 See App. p. 201. Cf. Schindel 1980a, 96 and 105.
44 C. Sallustius Crispus cum veterum Historicorum fragmentis. Lugduni Batavo-
rum, 1634.
46 Op. cit. 205.
47 Op. cit. 188.
48 Caius Sallustius Crispus. Ad D. Claudium Salmasium. Lugduni Batavorum,
1645.
49 Ibid. 199.
50 C. Sallustii Crispi opera, quae exstant omnia … Accurata recensione Antonii
Thysii … Lugduni Batavorum, 1659.
51 Cf. the first edition of 1643.
52 As a part of Aldus’ edition of Sallust published in V
enice in 1509. See above p.115.
53 Cf. Schindel 1980b, 3.
54 See App. p. 200 f.
One of the first English editions of Sallust was that of Joseph Wasse55
printed in Cambridge in 1710. 56 Wasse did not publish any new commen-
tary but he referred to those of Popma, Bade, Glarean, and also to a scho-
lium by Thysius. It is worth noting the biography of Sallust written by Jean
Leclerk also published in this edition.57 Jean Leclerk claimed that there was
no longer any doubt that both invectives were written by an orator no later
than the time of Tiberius, and not by Sallust and Cicero themselves.58
In the preface to his edition in Leipzig in 1724 59 Gottlieb Kortte con-

sidered the question of the authenticity of the invectives, ar guing that
both were written by the same author , an author who succeeded in rec-
reating both Sallust’s brevitas and Cicero’s copia.60 There follows a sep-
arate preface to the invective against Cicero, which explains that not only
the text but even the title “Sallust against Cicero” were spurious, the title
having probably been selected at a later date to denote the content of the
text.61 This title at first noted in margine was later wrongly accepted into
the manuscripts as a part of the text.
The edition of 1772 was printed in Halle62 without any changes. Concern-
ing attribution, the editor followed the view that the invective against
Cicero was genuine 63 whereas the second one and the letters to Caesar
were spurious. 64 At times however both invectives were considered
spurious. Thus, in the edition of Sallust printed in 1779 in Zweibrücken65
55 C. Crispi Sallustii quae extant… Recensuit Josephus Wasse, Cantabrigiae, 1710.

56 The only edition, issued in London in 1697, was a reprint of Crispinus’ Paris edi-
tion of 1674.
57 Cf. Schindel 1980a, 105.
58 “De eius oratione in Cicer onem et Ciceronis in Sallustium, nihil addam; quia,
licet antiquae sint, nec infra aevum T iberianum, animi causa, a Rhetor e quo-
piam confictas nemo amplius dubitat” (Ibid. XV). Cf. Nisbet 1958, 30.
59 Caii Crispi Sallustii quae exstant adnotationibus illustravit Gottlieb Cortius, Lip-
siae, 1724. This was the edition Jordan used as a base for his edition of Sallust.
60 Ibid. XIX–XX.
61 Ibid. 1048.
62 C. Sallustii Crispi opera cum declamationibus una in Ciceronem in Sallustium
altera. Halae, 1772.
63 Ibid. 197.
64 Ibid. 176.
65 Caii Crispi Sallustii Opera novissime recognita. Biponti, 1779.
the editor considered both invectives to be spurious, whereas the letters

to Caesar were considered to be genuine.
During the 19 th century the invectives were generally regarded to be

spurious.66 Thus a number of editions appeared in France, and not only in
France, but also in the Russian Empire, in the Ukrainian university town
of Charkov; these included the letters to Caesar , but excluded the in-
vectives.67
The problem of the authenticity of the invectives still remained an

important one for these editions even if it frequently went unmentioned.
An edition of Sallust with an Italian translation and commentaries was
printed in Brescia in 1806–1808. 68 The edition contains all the works
of Sallust including the letters to Caesar but does not contain the in-
vectives.
In 1821 in Paris J. L. Burnouf edited Sallust’s works adding a new com-

mentary.69 In this edition, which followed Kortte’s earlier argumentation,
both the invectives were regarded as spurious. Burnouf suggested that
some later erudite reader , or perhaps even the author of the invectives
himself, might have added the gloss “Sallustius in Ciceronem” to Quin-
tilian. Another possibility, also offered by Burnouf, involves the anony-
mous author taking a passage ascribed to Sallust as quoted by Quintilian
and placing it into his text. 70 Both these hypotheses display a certain
charm.
66 See the opinion of the signif icant German poet, translator and editor Christoph
Martin Wieland (1733–1813) on the invectives in order to understand the mood
and philological methods of the époque, especially the introduction to his trans-
lation of Horace’s Satires (Leipzig, 1786; 66).
67 Caii Crispi Sallustii Iugurtha, Parisiis, apud Ant. Aug. Renouard, 1795; Oevres
de Salluste … A Paris, chez Giguet et Michaud, 1808; Caii Crispi Sallustii, quae
extant, opera, Charcoviae, 1814.
68 Opere di C. C. Salustio in italiano recate dall’ abate Bartolommeo Nardini. Col
testo a fronte e con note. Brescia, V. I 1806, v. II 1806, v. III 1808.
69 Caius Crispus Sallustius ad codices parisinos recensitus curante J. L. Burnouf,
Parisiis, 1821.
70 Ibid. 496.
Over a twenty-f ive year period Friedrich Kritz edited all of Sallust’ s
works publishing them in Leipzig between 1828–1853 in three volumes.
The edition includes neither the letters nor the invectives.71 In his preface
Kritz states that his text is based on Kortte’ s edition, but that he chose
to include only such texts as were in fact written by Sallust, i.e.Catilina,
Iugurtha, and Historiae.
Rudolf Dietsch in his edition of Sallust with commentary, published
in Leipzig in 1859, followed the same approach.72
A volume of Roman historians was edited in 1840 73 in V enice by the

Paris Academy. The volume included Caesar, Sallust, Florus, and Lucius
Ampelius with a commentary to each author . Sallust was edited by Th.
Burette, and all his works were included except for the invectives. The
editor quotes from Quintilian in the preface, but believes that the evi-
dence remains unconvincing and that the invectives do not belong to Sal-
lust’s corpus.
The commentary-less Bassano edition of 1851 74 included Sallust’ s
invectives in the corpus. The text was printed as in Gruter ’s earlier edi-
tion, without any changes.
3.1.6 Henrich Jordan and further polemics on the authorship

of the invectives from 1876 up until today
Henrich Jordan published an article “Die Invectiven des Sallust und

Cicero”75 which analysed the syntactical, morphological and rhetorical
aspect of both the controversiae, as he calls them. 76 He ar gued that the
speeches could not have been written prior to T rajan (AD 98–1 17) nor
71 C. Sallustii Crispi opera quae supersunt, edidit et indicem accuratum adjecit Fri-
dericus Kritzius; Lipsiae, vol. I, 1828; vol. II, 1834; vol. III, 1853.
72 C. Sallustii Crispi quae supersunt. Recensuit Rudolfus Dietsch. I, II, Lipsiae 1859.
73 Nova Scriptorum Latinorum Bibliotheca ad optimas editiones recensita accur-
antubus Parisiensis Academiae Professoribus edita a C. L. F
. Panckoucke. Editio
prima Veneta. Venetiis, [1840].
74 Caius Crispus Sallustius cum veterum historicorum fragmentis. Bassani, suis
typis Remondini edidit, 1851.
75 Jordan 1876.
76 Ibid. 305.
later than Antoninus (AD 137–161), and that they were the work of the
same orator. F. Vogel77 concurred.
R. Reitzenstein 78 however disagreed with Jordan. He ar gued that the in-

vective was written in 54, the date when the actions it describes unfolded.
He also claimed that the invectives were written by different authors, and
that the second one imitated the style of the f irst, borrowing words and
syntactical constructions, thus explaining the similarities between the
two texts. He attributed the authorship of the invective against Cicero to
Sallust as the enmity between Cicero and Sallust was widely known, in-
deed already much discussed in Seneca’s time.
E. Schwartz 79 contributed the claim that the invective against Cicero
was written by Lucius Calpurnius Piso. Piso had refused to support Cicero
against Clodius Pulcher, and as a reward he had been granted, through a
law by Clodius, the administration of the province of Macedonia. His ac-
tivities there were later attacked in two speeches by Cicero. 80 Schwartz
found numerous parallels to Cicero’ s speech against Piso of 55 BC, and
also to the invective against Cicero written as a response to Cicero
in 54 BC. “The Piso hypotheses” was subsequently broadly discussed. 81
E. Norden, 82 and E. Meyer 83 came out in favour of Schwartz’ s position,
against were F. Schöll,84 B. Maurenbrecher,85 and Th. Zielinski.86
Zielinski87 coined the phrase Cicerokarikatur, in other words, the numer-

ous imitations of Cicero. He considers Pseudo-Sallust to have been one
of these imitators, similar to Quintus Fuf ius Calenus in the work by the
historian Cassius Dio (circa AD 164 – after 229).88
77 Vogel F. Sallustiana, Acta seminari philologici Erlangensis I 1878; 325 ff.

78 Reitzenstein 1898.
79 Schwartz 1898. Schwartz quotes Cic. Ad Q. fr. III 1, 11.
80 De provinciis consularibus, and, after Piso’s return, In Pisonem.
81 See Syme 1964, 315, f. 3.
82 Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft (hrsg. von A. Gercke und E. Norden),
1. Band, Leipzig und Berlin, 1910; 548.
83 Meyer 31922, 164 f.
84 Schöll 1902, 159 ff.
85 Maurenbrecher 1899, 299.
86 Zielinski, 31912, 281 f. Concerning this issue see also Nisbet 1961, 197–198.
87 Zielinski, 31912, 280 ff.
88 Dio Cass. 46, 1–28. Cf. Süss 1910, 260–263; Zielinski 31912, 281 ff.; Kurfess
1913c.
Dio gave an imaginary account of a meeting in the Senate not long

before Cicero’s death. Although Cicero’ speech is a weak reproduction
of his second Philippic,89 Calenus replied in a long speech, which fol-
lowed the invective against Cicero point by point, entering into all the de-
tails of Cicero’s private life, and making a funny caricature out of it. Ap-
parently Dio knew the invective itself, or a later rhetorical amplification
on the same theme; and it is thus possible to trace the history of this
school declamation for over three centuries. Like Corrado previously ,90
Zielinski compared the invective with Calenus’ speech against Cicero.
G. Peiser91 analysed the problem thoroughly and reached the conclusion

that the invectives were written by the same author , who imitated Sal-
lust’s and Cicero’s manner of writing and used a number of documents
that do not belong later than 54 BC. Thus Milo’s trial of 52 BC, where
both Sallust and Cicero participated, goes unmentioned in the invectives.
Peiser’s commentary to both invectives is also worth noting.
R. Wirtz92 on the other hand ar gued that the invective belonged to
Sallust, but was written after Cicero’ s death as a response to Cicero’ s
abuses in De consiliis suis.93
A. Kurfess advanced a number of ar guments94 against Sallust’s author-

ship, arguments that were later supported by A. Gwynn. 95 In 1922 how-
ever Kurfess appears to have been converted, abandoning his earlier de-
nials.96 Thus Kurfess proceeded to publish a number of articles ar guing
for Sallust’s authorship.97 In his editions of the invectives Kurfess comes
out against Sallustian authorship as can be seen in the preface to the 2 nd
edition of 1948, and especially in the preface to the 3rd edition of 1958. In
his preface to the 4th edition, written in 1961, he does not take a firm line
on the issue, while noting the significance of the arguments put forward
by scholars (Kurfess refers to Büchner, Eisenhut and Vretska) who do in
fact consider the invective against Cicero to be Sallustian.
89 Dio Cass. 45, 18–47.

90 Corrado, op. cit.; 93.
91 Peiser 1903.
92 Wirtz 1910.
93 See also Vretska 1961, I 14.
94 Kurfess 1912.
95 Gwynn 11926, 161 f.
96 Kurfess 1922, 66 ff.
97 See Leeman 1965, 586, 591, 592, 593, 594, 602.
G. Funaioli in 1920 says that the texts might well be genuine, he sug-
gested Quintilian had read this speech in its full form while we possess
only excerpts from it.98 Later in 1948 he argued that the invective against
Cicero was indeed by Sallust.99 By the mid-century a number of scholars
were swayed in this direction, believing the invective against Cicero to
be Sallustian.100
J. C. Rolfe edited Sallust in 1921. In his preface he comments on the
fact that the invective had generally been regarded as spurious, a specimen
of the pamphleteer literature which followed the period after Caesar ’s
death.101
A thorough and detailed analysis on the history of the authorship of the

invective against Cicero was made by O. Seel in 1943. 102 He compared
the text with both Cicero’s and Sallust’s texts. Seel’s argument was that
Cicero’s Phillipicae were used as a source for the writing of the invec-
tive. According to Seel, Cicero’ s speeches were used as a base. The
author then incorporated a number of Sallust’s works, and added phrases
in Sallust’s style for example from the speech by Memmius. 103 Seel ar-
gues against the “Piso hypothesis”. He believes the invective was written
not earlier than 44/43 BC.104 Thus the author might well have been a rhet-
orician of Augustus’ time in the thirties BC.
E. H. Clift published in 1945 an expanded version of her dissertation de-

voted to Latin literature of doubtful authenticity. She argued that the in-
vective against Cicero was composed in 54 BC by Sallust.105 The invec-
tive against Sallust, however, was composed by some unknown author, in
her opinion, prior to the 3rd century AD as a direct answer to Sallust’s in-
vective against Cicero, and it came to be attributed to Cicero because of
its content.106
98 Funaioli 1920, 1035, and 1932 ff.

99 Funaioli 1948, 56.
100 M. Gelzer , K. Buechner , E. Clift, L. Ross-T aylor, E. Cesareo, V . Paladini,
E. Bolaffi, L. Olivieri Sangiacomo (see Vretska 1961, I 14).
101 Sallust with an English T ranslation by J. C. Rolfe, Harvard, 11921; XIX–
XX.
102 Seel 1966 (11943).
103 Sall. Iug. 31. See Seel 1966, 83 ff.
104 Seel 1966, 130.
105 Clift 1945, 93 ff.; 121.
106 Clift 1945, 97 f.; 122.
G. Jachmann dated the invective against Cicero to the post-republi-

can period and considered it to be a rhetorical exercise “as if it were
composed by Piso”. 107 P. G. M. Nisbet 108 in 1961 concurred, attribu-
ting the invective to a rhetorician who wished to write an invective in
Sallust’s style. Nisbet believed that the invective might have been
written about the time of T iberius,109 which would mean between 14
and 37 AD.
J. Hejnic110 dated the invective against Cicero to 54 or 53BC. He offers

a new version of its authorship ar guing that the invective belonged to
Clodius Pulcher,111 an opponent of Cicero. In a number of his speeches
and letters112 Cicero referred to Clodius as someone who had slandered
him, and thus, pace Hejnic, this could have been one of Clodius’
speeches against Cicero. The similarity with Sallust’s texts is explained
by the fact that they were both tribunes of the commons in 53BC. Thus
Sallust may have heard Clodius orate, later using Clodius’ style in his
works.
E. Gabba considered the invective against Cicero to be a product of the

anticiceronian rhetorical tradition of various schools of rhetoric. One
possible attribution is to the school of Asinius Pollio who retired from
politics after the triumph over the Parthini of Illyria in 39BC and devoted
himself to literature, organizing the first public recitations.113
K. Büchner114 considered the invective against Cicero to be a genuine but

early work of Sallust. Büchner’s terminus ante quem is 53BC, the date of
Crassus’ death, since the invective was written by a supporter of Crassus,
a fact which corresponds to Sallust position during this period.
In 1961 in Heidelberg K. Vretska edited the invective against Cicero and

the letters to Caesar with a German translation and an extensive commen-
107 Jachmann 1950, 235ff. See also Oertel 1951, 46–68, who did not believe the in-
vective was genuine.
108 Nisbet 1961, 197–198.
109 Nisbet 1958, 30. Cf. Leclerk above p. 121.
110 Hejnic 1956, 260–268.
111 See above p. 124 in Schwartz’s argumentation.
112 Cf. Cic. Dom. 92; 93; Sest. 109; Phil. 2, 11; Att. 1, 14, 5; 1, 16, 10; etc.
113 Gabba 1957. Cf. also Zielinski 31912, 285; Kurfess 1954, 234.
114 Büchner 1960 (21982).
tary. Vretska argued for Sallustian authorship of the invective, believing

however that Sallust had never actually delivered this speech and also
that he had never published it. It was probably therefore an essay by the
young writer, a training in eloquence.
In A. Ernout’s 1962 edition the text of the invectives is considered to be

Pseudo-Sallustian. R. Syme 115 considered the invective to be an Au-
gustan rhetorical exercise, in imitation of Sallust. He referred to Nisbet,
arguing that the author failed to maintain the desired color Sallustianus
throughout the text.116 C. Becker considering the problem of the authen-
ticity of Sallust’s Invective and the Letters to Caesar believes them to be
spurious.117
In 1967 Büchner published a further work 118 where he criticized Syme’s

position. He was convinced of the genuineness of the invective and also
of the letters to Caesar, which he argued were linked to the invective sty-
listically.
In the article on Sallust in the Kleine Pauly, P. L. Schmidt 119 considered

the invective to be the earliest work by Sallust, though he acknowledged
that the authorship of the invective was still a being discussed.
The invectives are considered by L. D. Reynolds to be spurious in his edi-

tion of Sallust in 1991.
In 1993 W. Schmid published a work on early Sallust. 120 In it, he argues

that the invective against Cicero and the letters to Caesar belong to Sal-
lust, something that can be proved through the connections between
these texts and the rest of Sallust’ s works. He also believes that Bellum
Africum, a record of Caesar’s war in Africa in the winter 47–46 BC, was
in fact written by Sallust.121
115 Syme 1964, 317.

116 Cf. Maurenbrecher 1899, 301. Cf. Nisbet 1961, App. VII. See above p. 127.
117 Becker 1973, 742 ff.
118 Büchner 1967. Cf. also Speyer 1971, 7.
119 Schmidt 1972, 1514.
120 Schmid 1993.
121 Schmid 1993, 139 ff.
3.2 The History of the edited invectives 129
F. R. D. Goodyear in CHCL II122 and C. B. R. Pelling in OCD123 mention

the question of the authenticity of the invectives in passing, attributing
them to the rhetorical schools of the Augustan period.124
D. R. Shackleton Bailey published a new edition and translation of the in-

vectives in 2002. In the introductory note he considers both invectives to
be “spurious beyond any reasonable doubt”.125
Thus, whereas during the 19th century most commentators believed both
invectives to have been the product of the rhetorical schools, during the
20th century a number of nay-sayers 126 have argued that on the contrary
Sallust’s invective against Cicero was genuinely written by its purported
author. It is however a cause for concern that time and again scholars
make value judgements about Ciceronian style and morality: too often,
the question of the authenticity of ancient texts is raised because we be-
lieve that such invectives would not be appropriate to a Cicero, whereas,
in fact, invective was an essential part of Roman political and literary
life. Nonetheless, bearing in mind our own cultural baggage and the
danger of basing our judgements on a Cicero or a Sallust constructed ac-
cording to our own limited preconceptions, arguments contra seem to be
the more convincing. It remains unlikely that the authors of the two in-
vectives were actually Sallust and Cicero.
3.2 The history of edited invectives

(incunabula and 16th–20th centuries)
3.2.1 Textual transmission of the invectives in incunabula
Whereas the latest manuscripts of Sallust’s text are dated to the 16th cen-
tury, the editio princeps was already in print by the end of the 15 th cen-
tury, first printed in 1471. Both invectives were for the most part trans-
122 CHCL II 1982, 269.

123 Pelling 1996, 1349.
124 Cf. Conte 1994, 243.
125 Cicero. Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Letter Fragments. Letter to Octavian. In-
vectives. Handbook of Electioneering. Ed. and transl. by D. R. Shackleton
Bailey. Harvard 2002; 361.
mitted as part of the Sallustian corpus and only rarely alongside Cicero’s
speeches. Some editions contain conjectures, signif icant in themselves
for the history of the text. Other editions do not include conjectures and
simply transmit the readings of any given manuscript.
There are two editiones principes for the invectives. One of them, as
referred to by Reynolds,127 was published in Cologne in 1471.128 This edi-
tion is important as the invectives were published without the rest of Sal-
lust’s works. It is therefore the first “individual edition”.
Two conjectures, of fered by the Cologne edition, are accepted by
Reynolds into the text:
Cic. 4 parasti ]129 paraveris L ed. princ. Reynolds: parasses V : pararis
JordanSB
This conjecture of the Cologne edition does not seem to be convincing

despite the fact that it was accepted by a number of other editions:
Cic. 7 habens «LugdBas] habes ed. princ. IncAldGrutRom
The other edition was published in V enice in 1471. 130 This edition in-
cludes Sallust’s works alongside the text of invectives, as is usual in the
manuscript transmission.
From 1471 on the text of the invectives was transmitted alongside Sal-
lust’s works, as in the manuscript tradition. However , even when the
edition included all of Sallust’ s works, it often also included Cicero’ s
speeches against Catilina, a spurious response by Catalina to Cicero
and Porcius Latro’ s speech against Catilina. In these editions Sallust’ s
biography, the so-called vita Sallustii, preceded his works.
127 See TT 350 and in Reynolds’ edition of Sallust.

128 Sallustius Crispus, Caius. Invectiva in Ciceronem. Ps.-Cicero, Responsio in Sal-
lustium; Pius II, Epistola contra V ernandum de recommendatione poesis ad
Guillelmum de Lapide; Epitaphium Leonardi [Bruni] Aretini. [Colonia, c. 1471
(1472?)]. See App. p. 193.
129 Regarding this point, see above p. 30 and 74.
130 Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino. Vene-
zia, Vindelino da Spira, 1471. Inc. V. 564 (1471), ff. 66r–70v. In the catalogue of
Incunabula the edition in Cologne is dated to 1472 (see App. p. 193 f.).
The next edition of invectives also appeared in Venice131 in 1474, and yet
another in Milan 132 in 1476. There followed two V enetian editions 133 of
1478 and 1490 where Martial’s epigrams are included alongside the Sal-
lustian corpus. Pomponio Leto’s letter to Augustine Mathaeus is added to
editions of 1491.134
Incunabula transmit the same text without essential changes and so it is

possible to ascertain the manuscripts or in some cases the manuscript
traditions the editors used. Some correct readings coincide with correct
readings from family in contrast to family :
Cic. 2 tua ac (aut BX) dictaIInc] ac (an E) dicta tua BasGrut: facta tua
ac dicta tua N
Sall. 3 breve ut Inc] ut breve
: breve : brevem Hb
There are transpositions, which the incunabula have in common with

Cic. 3 haec cum ] cum haec HbInc: haec om., s. l. R
Cic. 3 se cicero dicit ] cicero se dicit IncAldLugdBasGrut: se cicero
dicit I
131 Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invec-

tiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Cicero-
nem; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Venezia, 1474.
tiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Cicero-
nem; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Milano, 1476.
tiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Martialis, Distichon; Cicero, Respon-
sio in Sallustium. Venezia, 1478. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniu-
ratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] V ita Sallustii;
Martialis, Distichon; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium; Catilina, Oratio responsiva
in Ciceronem. Curavit Justinianus Romanus. [Venezia, c. 1490].
134 Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius V alla;
De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem; Excerpta ex libris historiarum.
[Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; Vita Sallustii;
Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. V enezia, 1491. Sallustius Crispus, Caius.
De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius Valla; De bello iugurthino; Invec-
tiva in Ciceronem; Excerpta ex libris historiarum. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus,
Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; V ita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sal-
lustium. Venezia, 1492. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione,
comm. Laurentius Valla; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem; Excerpta
ex libris historiarum. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf-
feum; Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Milano, 1493.
There is an omission in incunabula common to family :

Cic. 1 et sceleratissimo] om. RInc: et celeratissimo E: et sceratissimo O
On one occasion a correct reading of is selected in contrast to the read-

ing of :
Cic. 1 iudicia Inc] audacia : ac iudicia N
There is an interpolation common to manuscripts of :

Sall. 4 illis ] illis viris IncAldLugdBasGrutRom
Thus, the editors used late contaminated manuscripts, for the most part
reliant on readings from family .
3.2.2 Textual transmission of the invectives in the 16th century
Aldus Manutius’ edition appeared in 1509.135 His manuscripts include no

new readings or conjectures. The editor did however use one, or perhaps
several, contaminated manuscripts.
The text of the invectives in the Venetian edition of 1511136 is not sub-
stantially different from the text in incunabula. Most of the errors co-
incide with errors of the manuscripts of family . The editor had access
to a number of late manuscripts. On occasions he chose the manuscript
reading, as in Cic. 7, where instead of habes (ed. princ. IncAldGrutRom-
Crisp) he chose habens («).137
The following edition, printed in Venice in 1513 138 preserved the text as
in Aldus’ edition while a new commentary is added, that of Bade.139

Sallustium. Eiusdem orations quatuor contra Lucium Catilinam. Porcii Latronis
declamatio contra Lucium Catilinam. Orationes quaedam ex libris historiarum
C. Crispi Sallustii. Venetiis [1509].
tiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Pom-
ponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maffeum; Venezia, [1511].
138 C. Crispi Sallustii Catilina et Jugurthina cum reliquis collectaneis ab Ascensio; ut-
cunque explanatis; hic suum capit finem diligenti recognitione. Venetiis [1513].
139 On Bade’s commentary on the authorship of the invectives and his edition of the
invectives see above p. 115.
In the Venetian edition of 1521140 the text of the invectives was printed as
in incunabula but with Bade’s commentary.
A new revised edition of Sallust was printed in Aldus’ publishing house

in 1522.141 This edition offered a new conjecture, accepted by many later
editors:
Cic. 1 cum] quoniam142 Ald1Grut RomVen
The editor of this edition used for the most part readings of manu-
scripts V and Mp, but also of later contaminated manuscripts. It is worth
noting a number of conjectures proposed by the editor as marginal scho-
lia. The influence of manuscripts of hyparchetype is significant:
Cic. 1 hoc om. : habet N: Ald1 in marg.
In this edition there are a number of new readings from later corrected
manuscripts. Thus there are three interpolations in the text, which were
later accepted in some other editions:
Cic. 7 eosdem] eos deo E: eosdem nunc Ald1LugdBasGrut
Sall. 6 incolumes in urbe] incolumes in hac urbe R Ald1LugdBasGrut: in
colomes in urbe E
Sall. 15 despectui habuit Norden] despectus : despectum fecit I: des-
serptus V: despectum Bas: despectum reddidit Ald1LugdGrutRom
As is clear from the transmission, many editors tried to correct the
text, interpolating an absent verb into the text (the scribe of I, Aldina
1522 etc.). This explained Norden’ s interpolation, which was later ac-
cepted by Reynolds also.
140 Caii Crispi Sallustii Historiographi Opus una cum infrascriptis commentaries
videlicet: Laurentii V allae: Omniboni Leoniceni: et Iodoci Badio Ascensii in
eiusdem bello Catilinario. In bello vero Iugurthino fratris Ioannis Chrisostomi
Soldi Brixiani, eiusdem Ascensii. Philippi Beroaldi invectivarum Ciceronis
comendatione. Eiusdem Sallustii in Ciceronem invectiva, Ciceronis in eundem
responsive. Venetiis, [1521].
Sallustium. Eiusdem orations quatuor contra Lucium Catilinam. Porcii Latronis
declamatio contra Lucium Catilinam. Quae omnia solerti nuper cura repur gata
sunt, ac quo quaeque ordine optime digesta. Venetiis [1522].
142 Reynolds following Jordan and Orelli-Baiter-Halm attributed this conjecture to
Halm.
In two further editions – a Venetian one in 1526 and a Florentine one in

1527143 – the text of Aldus’ editions and incunabula is reprinted without
changes. In the Florentine edition Sallust’ s text is printed together with
Apuleius’ one. There is no commentary in this edition.
The Venetian edition of 1536 144 was a reprint of the text of 1521 to-
gether with the commentary by Bade. Shortly thereafter the edition of
1541 was a reprint of the 1536 edition.
In Venice in 1546 there appeared a further edition of Sallust, 145 that
included, in addition to the works of Sallust, Cicero’ s speeches against
Catilina, Catilina’s purported responses to Cicero and a speech by Ca-
tilina against Porcius Latro.
There is a conjecture in this edition, accepted also by many later editions:
Sall. 16 ecquod GlareanLugdGrut]146 et quod AFN , Ald1 in marg.: et
pro K1, et quid VK2: qui post et quod B
143 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino; or-

ationes quaedam ex libris historiarum C. Crispi Sallustii. Eiusdem oratio contra
M. T. Ciceronem oratio. M. T ullii Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallus-
tium. Eiusdem orationes quatuor contra Lucium Catilinam. Quae omnia solerti
nuper cura repur gata sunt, ac suo quaeque ordine optime digesta. V enetiis
[1526]. L. Apuleii Madaurensis Opera; C.Crispi Sallustii Opera. Florentiae
[1527].
144 Hoc in volumine C. Crispi Sallustii haec omnia continentur. Epistola Pomponii
ad Augustinum Mapfeum; Epistola Io. Badii Ascensii nobiliss. ac Reverendo
D. Francisco Rouhan Lugdunensium Archipraesuli; Ex libris Petri Criniti de
historicis, ac oratoribus latinis. M. T. Ciceronis oratio in L. Catilinam. C. Crispi
Sallustii vita; C. Crispi Sallustii bellum Catilinarium cum interpretationibus
Laurentii Vall., Omniboni Leoniceni, et Io. Badii Ascensii; bellum Iugurthinum
cum comm. Io. Chry. Soldi Brixiani, necno et eiusdem Ascensii; M. T. Ciceronis
in Catilinam invectivae quinque; Orationes duae ad Caesarem senem de Repub-
lica. Venetiis [1536].
145 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, et de Bello Iugurthino historiae;
in M. T. Ciceronem oratio. M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Sallustium Responsio. Eius-
dem Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes IIII. Porcii Latronis Declamatio in
L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Sallustii. V enetiis,
[1546].
146 Reynolds attributed this conjecture to the Flamish humanist Louis Carrion
(1547–1595), though it appeared in some editions before Carrion’s commentary.
In Carrion’s commentary on the invectives this conjecture is in point of fact
absent. Cf. p. 118 above.
The Venetian edition of 1547147 reprinted the text of the previous edition
of 1546 but this time with the commentary by Bade added, as in the edi-
tion of 1521.
A further edition appeared in Lyon in 1551. 148 This was for all practical
purposes a re-edition of Aldus’ edition of 1522, though at times the editor
accepted mar ginal scholia that had not appeared in the f irst edition,
examples being:
Cic. 1 petulantia ista] ista petulantia : ista p. ista (ista 1 del.)V: ista tua
petulantia in marg. Ald, LugdBas
Cic. 1 praedae] perfidiae AldGrut: locum M: perfidiae locum V 1Ald in
marg., LugdBasRom, locum del. V2
Cic. 1 reperticius] repertius M: repertitius L Ald in marg.: reptitius Ald-
BasGrutRom: irreptitius Ald in marg., Lugd
Cic. 4 rem publicam caram] rem publicam charam Ald in marg., Lugd:
populi romani curam BasGrutRom
The Lyon editor followed the same principle as all the previous edi-
tors. His text is based on late contaminated manuscripts with a number of
new interpolations and conjectures. The readings sometimes coincide
with those from family and sometimes with those of family .
A further edition of Sallust appeared in V enice in 1555. 149 This edition

includes a selection of Aldus’ conjectures written as mar ginal scholia. A
number of conjectures are significant for the later transmission of the text:
Sall. 3 illam Ald in mar g., LugdVenBas]150 aliam : aliorum Mp: sed
vitam aliam I
147 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, et de Bello Iugurthino historiae; in

M. T. Ciceronem oratio. M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Sallustium Responsio. Eiusdem
Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes V . Lucii Catilinae in M. T . Ciceronem or-
ationes responsivae duae. Porcii Latronis Declamatio in L. Catilinam. Frag-
menta quaedam ex libris historiarum Sallustii. Venetiis, [1547].
148 C. Crispi Sallustii de L. Ser gii Catilinae coniuratione, ac Bello Iugurthino his-
toriae; eiusdem in M. T . Ciceronem M. T . Cic. in Sallustium Recriminatio …
Lugduni, 1551.
149 C. Salustii Crispi de coniuratione Catilinae, et de bello Iugurthino Historiae …
Cum Iodoci Badii Ascensii in haec omnia familiaribus explanationibus… Vene-
tiis, 1555.
150 Reynolds attributed the conjecture to Gottlieb Kortte (see the edition of 1724;
see below p. 142), so did Shackleton Bailey. In fact this conjecture had already
been proposed in the Lyon edition of 1551 and then reprinted in the Venice and
Basel editions (see App. p. 198 f.).
It is worth noting that the Venetian editor accepted Aldina’s scholia into
his text at two disputed points:
Sall. 3 illam Ald in marg., LugdBasVen] aliam : aliorum Mp: sed vitam
aliam I
ERVAld in mar g.,
The following interpolation, stemming probably from the later manu-

scripts, was also accepted into the text:
Sall. 4 Metellos ] Metellos vel Fabios «Ven in marg.: metello I: metelli
HbBasGrut: Paulos Ven
This now settled text was printed again without any signif icant changes
in 1557, 1560, and 1567 in Venice and in 1563 in Padua.151 The influence
of late contaminated manuscripts and of Aldina’ editions is evident.
A full edition of Sallust with a commentary was printed in Christophe

Plantin’s publishing house in Antwerp in 1564. Paulus Manutius revised
this edition, which included a number of scholia by Aldus Manutius the
Younger.152 In this edition there is no commentary to the invectives but
only the scholia of Aldus Manutius the Younger.
The editor enjoyed access to various manuscripts and we can trace
his selection of readings. He relies for the most part on family , and,
within that family, on the readings of hyparchetype , examples being:
Cic. 2 tua ac (aut BX) dicta IInc] ac (an E) dicta tua Ald2Bas: facta tua
ac dicta tua N
Cic. 4 illius] eius Ald2BasGrut
Ald2LugdGrut153
Variae lectiones are for the most part explicable through a recognition of
the fact that Aldus Manutius the Y ounger relied on Renaissance manu-
scripts adding new interpolations, something that was not the case with
medieval manuscripts. Only rarely did the editor chose the reading of
archetype in contrast to later manuscripts, for example:
151 See App. p. 198.

152 C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum … Fragmenta
Historiarum C. Sallustii Crispi… ab Aldo Manutio, Pauli F. Collecta … Antver-
piae, 1564. See Voet v. V., 1982, 2019–2021.
153 This passage is mistakenly referred to in Reynolds’ apparatus. Cf. Reynolds 228.
Sall. 2 scio «] sciatis Ald2BasGrutRom: atis del., o s. l. K2
This conjecture, accepted by almost all the later editors, is worth noting:
Cic. 2 alicui]154 alteri Ald2LugdBasGrutRomOrelli
In all probability Aldus inserted this conjecture by analogy with Sall. 13.
Two conjectures are made on the invective against Sallust:

Sall. 18 homines Ald2] nominis : nominis in mg. V
The manuscript text read nominis perditi ac notissimi, as in archetype .
The conjecture homines is offered by Aldus Manutius the Younger: “Quid
si legas: h o m i n e s p e r d i t i a c n o t i s s i m i ?”155
The second conjecture suggested by Aldus reads:

Sall. 17 vexavit E] vixit A1I
Ald2: vetuit XBG?: vetavit T
The text read vexavit. Aldus however preferred the reading vixit.
His notes also reveal his acquaintance with variants:“Nihil muto. Vi x i t
tamen pro v e x a v i t magis placer et.” [I change nothing. But I would
prefer vixit instead of vexavit.]156
The Venetian edition of 1567157 noted these scholia by Aldus in the margin.
A full edition of Sallust appeared in Basel in 1564. 158 In addition to the

invectives it reprinted the commentaries by Bade and Glarean.
A new reading included in this edition allows us to infer the inf
luence
of manuscripts on this text, with hyparchetype as a source:
Ald2LugdGrut
154 Reynolds attributed this conjecture to Orelli whereas Orelli was simply follow-
ing the reading that already existed.
155 Reynolds attributed this conjecture to Johann Wilhelm Berger (see Kortte’s edi-
tion). So did Shackleton Bailey. Berger was professor of rhetoric in the Univer-
sity of Wittenberg (see Kortte’s edition of 1724 (=1737), preface p. VIII). Kortte
used Berger’s manuscripts of Sallust ( nihilo minus Ber gerianas vocavimus, ut
ipso nomine, quo in Germania nostra vix aliud illustrius est, illustriores essent,
[ibid. VIII]), and he sometimes included Berger’s conjectures. However, in this
particular case the conjecture by Ber ger was in fact originally made by Aldus
Manutius the Younger.
156 Cf. p. 39 above.
157 See App. p. 199.
158 C. Crispi Salustii et Latinorum historicorum praestantissimi Opera, quae quidem
exstant, omnia … Basileae, 1564.
Justus Lipsius in his work Variae Lectiones159 considered a passage from

the invective against Sallust. He offered to correct the text in Sall. 3:
Sall. 3 velitariLipsiusGrut] volutari rell.: voluptari K1HOV: volutari pos-
sit I
As a connoisseur of vintage ciceronian style, Lipsius found fault with the

style of the text of the invective and indeed felt uncomfortable that some-
one with such mediocre skills might presume to subscribe the text to so
worthy a name. Considering the passage Sall. 3, he pointed out that, in
the manuscript he used, the wordsus, which followed on fromlutulentus,
was absent. He thus reread the passage and made an important conjec-
ture: that sus should be excluded. In his opinion it was originally in-
cluded due to a dittography , a duplication of the last syllable of the
previous word. Further, Lipsius believed the passage would make better
sense, if volutari was replaced with velitari:
itaque nihil aliud studet nisi ut luculentus cum quovis velitari. longe vero
fallitur opinione; non enim procacitate linguae vitae sordes eluuntur, sed
est quaedam calumnia, quam unus quisque nostrum testante animo suo
fert … Id est, ita procax effectus est Sallustius, ut nihil aliud studeat, nisi
tamquam homo festivus et luculentus cum quovis velitari, et quemvis cal-
umniis ac improba lingua incessere. Quae quidem lectio sequentibus sta-
tim verbis manifeste comprobatur.
[he therefore bothers himself with nothing more, fine fellow that he is, than
with attacking whomever he wants. In this however he errs seriously , for
life’s blemishes are not purified through the looseness of a fellow’s tongue.
Yet there is a kind of ver dict of false accusation, which each of us in his
judgement bears witness to … That means, Sallust is so licentious, that he
concerns himself with noting more, than attacking whomever he wants,
like some droll and f ine fellow, and than assailing whomever he wishes
with false accusations and foul language. This reading is indeed plainly
confirmed immediately by the following words.]
Plantin’s publishing house in Antwerp issued a commentary to Sallust by
Louis Carrion in 1579.160 The commentary contains an apparatus criticus
with variae lectiones based on Aldus’ conjectures, and also a number of
historical references and notes by Cyprian Popma.
159 Lipsius 1637, 55 ff. See also above p. 118.

160 See above p. 118. In Sallustii Crispi Catilinam, et Iugurtham, in Historiarum lib.
VI a Ludovico Carrione collectos, auctos, et restitutos. Antverpiae, 1579. See:
Voet v. 5, 1982, 2021–2023.
Cyprian Popma thus agrees with Lipsius’ s reading of Sall. 3. 161 He

does not accept sus in the text, following in this regard the reading of the
greater part of the medieval manuscripts162 and also the considerations of
Justus Lipsius ad loc.
The Venice edition of 1584163 represents a contamination of Aldinae and

previous Venetian editions. The conjectures, of fered by Aldus, are ac-
cepted in the text. The text however also includes a new reading, prob-
ably based on a late manuscript:
Sall. 4 illis ] illis viris IncAldLugdBasGrutRom: illi viris Ven 1584
The last edition of Sallust by Plantin was issued in Antwerp (though it

was printed in Leiden) in 1587. 164 This practical pocket size edition in-
cludes no comments and no changes.
There are no comments and no conjectures in Plantin’s next edition, that

of 1602.165 The editor rejects even previously accepted conjectures. Thus
Plantin reverts to archetype ’s reading aliam:
Sall. 3 illam Ald in marg., LugdBasVen] aliam ed1602GrutRom, in mg.
Ven: aliorum Mp: sed vitam aliam I
Jan Gruter’s Frankfurt edition of 1607166 does not add any new comments,
including these by Glarean, Popma and Carrion without any changes,
161 In Sallustii Crispi Catilinam, et Iugurtham … in Historiarum lib. VI a Ludovico

Carrione collectos, auctos, et restitutos … Antverpiae, 1579; 183.
162 The collation results show that in the majority of the manuscripts sus is absent.
163 C. Crispi Salustii De L. Ser gii Catilinae coniuratione, et Bello Iugurthino his-
toriae, cum reliquis orationibus, quas index sequentis paginae docebit. Venetiis,
[1584].
164 Caii Sallustii Crispi opera quae exstant, una cum fragmentis. Antverpiae,
[1587]. See: Voet v. 5, 1982, 2023.
165 C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant. Helias Putschius ex fide vetustiss.
Cod. Correxit, et Notas addidit; idem Fragmenta centum locis auxit et inter-
polavit. Adiecta v . c. Petri Ciacconii T oletani Notae. Ex Of ficina Plantiniana,
Raphelengii, [1602].
166 See above p. 119 f. C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant ex recognitione
Iani Gruteri accedunt; Francofurti, 1607.
alongside the two scholia by Aldus. 167 The text of the invectives in
Gruter’s edition differs from that in previous ones. It is based on late con-
taminated manuscripts as well as the earlier editions. W e find readings
from family and also readings from family . Apart from the following
individual interpolation:
Cic. 1 apud om. K1, s. l. K2: apud r. p. T: apud populum r. Z: aput H: ne
aput P: an apud Grut Rom,
Gruter tends to keep the conjectures by Aldus Manutius in his text.
Gruter seems to have accepted the conjecture of Lipsius:168

Sall. 3 velitariLipsiusGrut] volutarirell.: voluptari K1HOV: volutari possit I
In 1609 there appeared in Rome a full edition of Sallust.169 It did not con-
tain any commentary to the invectives. The text itself mainly represents a
contamination of Aldus’ and Gruter’s editions.
The Venetian edition of 1610 170 included no new readings. Gruter ’s edi-
tion was not taken into account and Aldina’s text was reprinted with
Aldus Manutius the Younger’s scholia.
An edition of Sallust with fragments from ancient historians appeared in

Leiden in 1634171 and was emendated by Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn.172
The text of the invectives is reprinted as in Gruter’s without changes.
The same edition was then reprinted in Amsterdam in 1658.173
In the edition prepared by Saumaise in Leiden in 1645, 174 the text of the
invectives was reprinted according to Gruter, without commentary or ap-
paratus.

169 C.Crispi Sallustii Opera Quae exstant, Omnia, Romae, 1609.
170 C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum. Fragmenta eius-
dem historiarum, et scriptoribus antiquis ab Aldo Manutio, Paulli F . collecta.
Scholia Aldi Manutii. Venetiis, [1610].
171 See above p. 120. C. Sallustius Crispus cum veterum Historicorum fragmentis.
Lugduni Batavorum, 1634.
172 See Willems 1880, 101.
173 C. Sallustius Crispus cum veterum Historicorum fragmentis. Amstelodami,
1658. See Willems 1980, 315–316.
174 See above p. 120. Caius Sallustius Crispus. Ad D. Claudium Salmasium. Lug-
duni Batavorum, 1645.
A new edition of Sallust appeared in Leiden in 1649 (reprinted in

1659).175 This edition was revised and emendated by Anthony Thysius.176
Thysius included shortened commentaries to the invective against Cicero
by Bade, Glarean, Popma and Carrion. The invective against Sallust is
not included. Thysius also added his own commentary (for example to
the passage Cic. 7).177
Johann Friedrich Gronovius’ edition of Sallust printed in Leiden in

1665178 was a reprint of Thysius’ edition. The same text was then re-
printed in Leiden in 1677179 and in Amsterdam in 1690.180
An edition by Daniel Crispinus appeared in Paris in 1674. 181 The com-

mentary is taken from Thysius’ edition, the text itself is printed as it had
been previously in Gruter’s and Aldus’ editions.
The edition of Joseph Wasse182 was printed in Cambridge in 1710. In the

preface to his edition Wasse mentioned the main preceding editions and
he also referred to earlier editions in his apparatus criticus. In general
Wasse’s edition would seem to be a contamination of the earlier editions
by Aldus, Putsch, Gruter and Thysius.
175 See above p. 120. Cf. App. p. 200 f. C. Sallustii Crispi opera, quae exstant
omnia … Accurata recensione Antonii Thysii … Lugduni Batavorum, 1659.
176 Cf. the first edition of 1643.
177 (Thysius) Op. cit. 534.
178 C. Crispi Sallustii quae exstant … Ex recensione J. F. Gronovii. Lugduni Bata-
vorum et Roterodami, 1665.
179 C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant … Editio novissima. Lugduni Ba-
tavorum, 1677.
180 C. Crispi Sallustii opera quae exstant … Amstelodami, 1690.
181 C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. In usum serenissimi Galliarum Crispini, dili-
genter recensuit, notulas addidit Daniel Crispinus. Parisiis [1674].
182 See above p. 121. C. Crispi Sallustii quae extant … Recensuit Josephus Wasse,
Cantabrigiae, 1710.
In Padua in 1722 183 Caietanus Vulpius emended a further edition of Sal-

lust. In the preface to his edition he explained that he gathered and col-
lated new manuscripts of Sallust. There are however no new readings for
the invectives. The edition is based on two editions, that of Elzevir pub-
lished in 1634 and of that of W asse. Vulpius even quotes from W asse’s
reference to Gruter’s edition of 1607.
A new edition with apparatus criticus was completed by Gottlieb Kortte

in Leipzig in 1724. 184 Kortte used new manuscripts from Gudius’ col-
lection (Wolfenbüttel), the major part of which were late, corrected and
contaminated. Kortte referred to one old manuscript A, 185 and also to
two manuscripts from Reims: Rem. 1111186 (early 15th century) and Rem.
1329187 (second half of the 11th century).
Reynolds includes five of Kortte’s conjectures in his apparatus. Some
of them should indeed be accepted into the text:188
Sall. 6 si delendum coni. Cortius
Another conjecture was mentioned by Reynolds in his apparatus but he

did not accept it into the text:
Cic. 2 aut] at X: del. Cortius: an IncRom: om. Crisp
Kortte’s edition is the f irst edition of the invectives with an apparatus

criticus which conforms, more or less, to our contemporary expectations.
Jordan’s edition is based on Kortte’s edition.189
The Venetian edition of 1737 is a reprint of Kortte’s edition.
183 C. Crispi Sallustii quae exstant. Ex optimis codd. accuratissime castigata. Acce-
dunt Julius Exsuperantius, Porcius Latro; et fragmenta historicorum veterum. In
quibus quid praestitum nunc primum sit, et quae adiuncta his fuerint, indicat
Epistola ad Lectorem. Patavii, [1722].
184 See above p. 121. Caii Crispi Sallustii quae exstant adnotationibus illustravit
Gottlieb Cortius, Lipsiae, 1724. This was the edition Jordan used as a base for
his edition of Sallust.
185 See ch. 2 p. 42.
186 Cf. Novokhatko 2002, 277.
187 See above ch. 2 p.77. Even if Kortte collated manuscript R as he claimed, he did
not use its readings in his text.
188 Reynolds accepted three conjectures, but only two are referred to here, since the
third was not in fact made by Kortte. See above p. 136.
189 See p. 145 below.
Siegbert Havercamp 190 published an extensive edition of Sallust in

Amsterdam in 1742. The f irst volume contained Catilina and Jugurtha
with numerous commentaries, the second volume contained dedica-
tions, prefaces and biographies of Sallust by Crinito, 191 Vossius,192 and
Leclerk,193 a number of ancient references to Sallust, fragments from the
Historiae, the letters to Caesar and also both invectives.
Variae lectiones and the commentaries by Glarean, Popma, W asse,
Bade, Carrion and Thysius were added to the invectives. In the preface
Havercamp points out that he used three editions – Gruter ’s, Wasse’s
and Kortte’s – and that he collated new manuscripts from the library
of Leiden. These manuscripts are late, contaminated and corrected. 194
The apparatus to the invectives was made with the collation of only one
manuscript, which is termed C by the editor.195 On several occasions Ha-
vercamp referred to collations of manuscripts by Franciscus Oudendor-
pius which were prepared for this edition. For all practical purposes how-
ever Gruter’s text was printed without changes.
In the V enetian edition of 1761 196 the text was again printed without
changes. Guido Ferrari’s commentary to Catilina and Iugurtha was in-
cluded in the edition. The text of invectives followed Gruter ’s and
Kortte’s editions.
Epitome Rerum Romanarum by Florus was printed alongside Sallust in

the one volume Birmingham edition of 1773. 197 The text was printed
without any changes, with neither preface nor commentary.
190 C. Crispi Sallusii quae exstant, cura Sigeberti Havercampi, Amstelaedami, 1742.
191 See above p. 115, 120.
194 Cf. Novokhatko 2002, 281.
195 Leyden, B. P. L. 63, 1467–1471; Paper , 195 x130, 88 ff.; Codices Bibliothecae
Publicae Latini (Lugduni Batavorum 1912), 31 f.; f f. 38–41; scribe: Nicolaus
Gruter de Scoerl.
196 C. Crispi Sallustii Catilinarium et Jugurthinum Bellum P . Guidonis Ferrarii S. J.
diligentia illustratum ad usum Universitatis Braydensis. In hac novissima edi-
tione. Accedunt reliqua Sallustii quae extant omnia una cum Porcii Latronis
in Catilinam Declamatione, et V eterum Historicorum Fragmentis. V enetiis
[1761].
197 C. Crispus Sallustius et L. Annaeus Florus. Birminghamiae, 1773.
A further edition of Sallust was printed in 1779 in Zweibrücken.198 In the

preface the editor referred to Kortte and then to all the previous editions
and commentaries of the text from Aldus on, including Rivius, Glarean,
Carrion, Popma, Gruter and Wasse. The text is printed without changes.
The biography of Sallust by Jean Leclerk, though not that of Crinito or
Soldus, was included as a preface to Sallust’s works.
There were no changes made for the V enetian edition of 1786, 199 which
followed Gruter’s text. The Parisian edition of Crispinus dating to 1674
was reprinted in 1790.200
In 1801 in Paris in Didot’s publishing house a “standard edition” of Sallust

was printed.201 All Sallust’s works, including the invectives, were printed
without either changes or commentary. The edition contained no preface.
The first edition of the invectives in Orelli’s edition of Cicero was issued
in 1826 in Zurich. The second edition was edited by Orelli-Baiter -Halm
in 1856. 202 The text of the invectives was prepared by Johann Geor g
Baiter based on Fleckeisen’ s collation of manuscript A, Halm’ s colla-
tion of manuscripts T and B,203 and on Orelli’s 1826 edition. Baiter’s ap-
paratus criticus contains readings of four manuscripts (A, T, B and a later
manuscript of 15 th century), and also several conjectures. An inter-
polation made by Halm is worth noting. This attempt to explain “alios”
was accepted by later editors, though the interpolation seems to be an un-
necessary attempt to improve the text:
Cic. 3 exilio alios suppl. Halm: morte alios priores
198 Caii Crispi Sallustii Opera novissime recognita. Biponti, 1779.

199 C. Crispi Sallustii quae extant opera ex optimis codicibus accuratissime casti-
gata. Cum notis selectioribus. Venetiis, [1786].
200 C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. In usum serenissimi Galliarum Delphini, diligenter
recensuit, notulas addidit Daniel Crispinus. Bassani, [1790]. Cf. p. above 139.
201 C. C. Sallustii Catilinaria et Iugurthina bella. P. Didot natu majoris, et F. Didot.
1801.
202 M. Tullii Ciceronis opera quae supersunt omnia ex recensione Io. Casp. Orellii.
Editio altera emendatior . Opus morte Orellii interruptum continuaverunt
I. G. Baiterus et C. Halmius. Voluminis II. Pars II. Turici, [1856].
203 See above ch. 2, p. 49 ff.
Two other conjectures provided by Baiter and Orelli do not convince:

Sall. 8 sit] est Baiter
Sall. 15 eius] sua Orelli
3.2.6 Henrich Jordan and new editions of the invectives

from 1876 up until today
Henrich Jordan’s Berlin edition of 1876204 was influenced by Lachmann’s

methodology and includes the f irst stemma of the manuscripts of the
invectives. During the same year Jordan published an article which ana-
lysed the syntactical, morphological and rhetorical aspect of both the
controversiae, as he calls them.205
The 1876 edition was Jordan’ s second edition of Sallust, the f irst
one having excluded the invectives. The apparatus criticus provides a
compilation of Kortte, Orelli-Baiter -Halm and a number of new medi-
eval manuscripts.
Jordan adds three manuscripts H, K and Hb, all from British Museum,
to A, T, and B, 206 which were known from previous editions. Jordan di-
vided the manuscripts into two families, then into groups, and created a
first variant of stemma, very simple in form, but fundamentally correct.
H. Wirz made a new edition of the invective against Cicero in 1898. 207
He did not use any new manuscripts, but emended the edition of Jordan
with seventeen conjectures. Reynolds accepted three of these into his
text.208
A new edition with apparatus criticus was made by A. Kurfess in
1914.209 Kurfess used ten manuscripts altogether, adding the four manu-
scripts M, E, P and V210 to Jordan’s stemma.
204 C. Sallustii Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha, Henricus Jordan iterum recognovit; Bero-
lini, 1876.
205 Jordan 1876, 305 ff.
206 See stemma on p. 29.
207 Wirz 1898, 91 ff.
208 See a critical review of Maurenbrecher 1899, especially 302 f. See Reynolds
226, l. 25; 228, l. 15, 16. See below p. 146 ff.
209 Sallusti in Ciceronem et Invicem Invectivae. RecensuitAlphonsus Kurfess. Lip-
siae [11914], 51970.
210 See above p. 27 ff.
An important conjecture made by Kurfess, which should be accepted into

the text, is worth noting:
Cic. 3 aliquos Kurfess] alio Z: alios ceteri 211
J. C. Rolfe edited Sallust in 1921 using Kurfess’ text with a new English
translation and commentary.212 Both invectives are included.
In 1961 in Heidelberg K. Vretska edited the invective against Cicero and

the letters to Caesar basically following Kurfess’ edition with a German
translation and an extensive commentary.213
In A. Ernout’ s 1962 edition the text of the invectives follows Kurfess’

with a commentary and a French translation.214
L. D. Reynolds worked extensively on the textual tradition of the Sallus-

tian corpus.215 Reynolds used sixteen manuscripts for his stemma,216 pub-
lished in 1983 in TT, adding manuscripts F, G, C, D, S, R, and O to Kur-
fess’ edition and excluding V .217 The principle of his stemma is that of
Jordan and Kurfess. A new edition of Sallust was published by Reynolds
in 1991.218 In this edition Reynolds worked with eleven manuscripts A, ,F
K, T, X, C, D, S, E, H, and M. Thus, for the stemma of 1991 Reynolds
added manuscript X to the stemma of 1983, and excluded manuscripts G,
B, Hb, R, O, and P.
Reynolds is very conservative in his handling of the text of the invec-

tives. He hardly ever changes the text of the manuscript transmission,
though he does sometimes accept new conjectures proposed by other
scholars. On one occasion he proposes his own interpolation:
211 Cf. Halm’s conjecture p. 144.

213 Vretska 1961. See Kurfess’ 4th edition of 1962 where on the last page (p. 31) he
places a list of discrepancies between his and Vretska’s readings in the invective
against Cicero.
214 Pseudo-Sallust. Lettres à César, Invectives; par A. Ernout. Paris, 1962.
215 See TT 341–352.
216 TT 350.
217 V is a late manuscript. It contains traces of contamination and is not a palimp-
sest. Cf. Novokhatko 2002, 285.
218 C. Sallustii Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha… ed. by L. D. Reynolds. Oxford, 1991.
Cic. 1 ubiubi] est add. Reynolds : ubi K 1HbV1«BasGrutRomVenSB (sed

ubi2 s. l. K2V2, del. M)
On some other occasions he accepts other scholars conjectures or notes

that they might be right:
Cic. 3 quo] quod Baiter, fort. recte susp. Reynolds
Cic. 3 calumniae] caluminiae, mi del. B: Catilinae WirzReynoldsSB
Cic. 4 esse opulentiam … parasti] esse quin opulentiam … paraveris L ed.
princ.Reynolds
The manuscript L included the reading paraveris before this conjecture
of the editio princeps, but Reynolds mentioned it as a reading of the edi-
tio princeps.219
Cic. 4 L. RawsonReynolds] M. Bas: Marci MpO: C. Marii Glarean-

GrutVenSB
Reynolds accepted Rawson’s witty conjecture into his text.220
Cic. 5 Romam] Romam alt. add. WinterbottomReynoldsSB

Cic. 6 his NK 2CIZH2MMpKurfess: iis AF
D1: hiis K 1D2: piis : is O:
om. ERH1: del. Ald2LugdGrutF.SchmidtReynolds
Following the conjecture of Schmidt, Reynolds excludes iis (his) from
the text. In fact, this conjecture appeared in the Antwerp edition of 1564
as proposed by Aldus Manutius the Y ounger and was then accepted by
some later editions.221
Cic. 6 fecisti] ei add. WirzReynoldsSB

Sall. 2 sciatis AldLugdBasGrutRom] atis del., o s.l. K2: scio «Reynolds:
sciam Jordan
Following the reading of later manuscripts, Reynolds alters the text from
sciatis to scio. Jordan had already tried to change the 1st person here from
plural to singular. Whilst Jordan’s singular is definitely stylistically finer,
I find any conjecture unnecessary at this point.
Sall. 3 luculentus TLipsius] lutulentus rell.: luculenter Hb: lutulentum Q:

lutulentus sa, sa del. Mp: sus add. EMRZ(?)MpReynoldsSB
219 Cf. ch. 2, p. 30 and 74 above.

220 Cf. ch. 2, 31 above.
Reynolds followed the interpolation of manuscripts E and M (sic in his

apparatus!) and included sus into his text. I prefer Lipsius conjecture
here.222
Sall. 3 velitari LipsiusGrut]223 volutari rell.: voluptari K 1 HOV: volutari
possit I
Sall. 4 nobis] a nobis Mp: vobis I: de nobis «JordanReynoldsSB
Sall. 5 per te van der HoevenReynolds] certe : per te certe V
Sall. 7 historiis] istoriis B: in historiis NIV «ReynoldsSB: historiae s.l.
is Hb
Sall. 7 vel NordenKurfess] illum XL
: illam T: illic QHb: illinc S: illud
Sall. 9 a viris del. Holford-StrevensReynoldsSB: iuraris s.l. vir a viris K 2
Sall. 17 et del. JordanKurfessReynoldsSB
Sall. 18 chilonum MaurenbrecherReynolds] cilonum ISM: cylonum
AF
LEHPO: cylonium K: ciclonum QH b: cillonum MpV : cyno-
num N
Sall. 18 homines Ald2GulielmiusReynoldsSB] nominis Kurfess: nomi-
nis in mg. V
Following Ber ger’s reading homines, which was in fact proposed by
Aldus Manutius the Younger, Reynolds alters the text in a plausible way .224
The latest edition of the invectives is part of the Loeb edition of Cicero
prepared by D. R. Shackleton Bailey.225 Shackleton Bailey slightly alters
Reynolds’ text, with some fine and witty conjectures, which sometimes
even happen to follow other manuscripts readings:
Cic. 4 amicitia T2] –iae : om. I: iustitia SB
Sall. 1 tua] sua SB
Sall. 1 nostrum] quid add. SB
Sall. 2 minimis] in minimis QHbZSB: non cum (cum del.) minimis V
Sall. 2 omnino] omnio B: om. QHb: omni VSB: omnino se M
Sall. 3 de eo … obiectat secl. JordanReynolds: habent KurfessSB 226
Sall. 4 non nullos … pigeret] nullos … non pigeret SB
Sall. 6 aut om. K: del. SB

223 Ibidem.
224 Cf. above p. 137.
225 Cicero. Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Letter Fragments. Letter to Octavian. In-
vectives. Handbook of Electioneering. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackle-
ton Bailey. Harvard 2002; pp. 359–391. See also p. 129 above.
226 See above ch. 2, p. 32.
Sall. 6 duxit] dixit s. l. u KMp: dixit NHMO: add. quis fuit SB

Sall. 6 magistratibus] tam diligens add. SB
Sall. 7 palam] in add. SB
Sall. 9 habens] del. SB
Sall. 11 studuit] aut inimicus fuit add. SB
Sall. 16 quo usus est quisque eorum pro lege, palam universis recitarem
SB227
Sall. 19 refelle] dic add. SB
Sall. 21 altero] alio E: male add. SB
On some other occasions he prefers the readings of Kurfess or Jordan to

those of Reynolds. He does not use any new manuscript relying on the
standard text of Reynolds. His edition also includes a new English trans-
lation of the invectives.
Finally, the present edition builds on the work by Reynolds that of 1983
and that of 1991. The conjectures proposed by Shackleton Bailey are also
considered. In addition to the manuscripts used by Reynolds, the present
edition examines six further manuscripts.228 Most manuscripts were also
re-examined and the conclusions were incorporated into the new edition
of the text. Here too a full textual history of these texts is presented for
the first time.229
227 See p. 180–181 below.

228 See above ch. 2, p. 27 ff.
229 I have already published the new version of the text of the invectives with an ap-
paratus criticus and a brief introduction and translation in Russian in the Vestnik
Drevnej Istorii (Journal of Ancient History) 249 and 250, cf.Novohatцko 2004.
However, the Russian version did not take in to account Shackleton Bailey’s la-
test edition (2002), and there were some inaccuracies in the apparatus which now
have been corrected. Thus, the text appears for the first time in its present form.
150 Chapter 4 Text known as Sallust's invectives
Chapter 4
Text known as Sallust’s invectives with a new apparatus
criticus, a translation, and a commentary
IN M. TVLLIVM CICERONEM INVECTIVA
1. Graviter et iniquo animo maledicta tua paterer, M. T ulli, si te scirem

iudicio magis quam morbo animi petulantia ista uti. sed cum in te neque
modum neque modestiam ullam animadverto, respondebo tibi, ut si
5 quam male dicendo voluptatem cepisti, eam male audiendo amittas.
Ubi querar, quos implorem, patres conscripti, diripi rem publicam
atque audacissimo cuique esse praedae? apud populum Romanum? qui
ita largitionibus corruptus est ut se ipse ac fortunas suas venales habeat.
an apud vos, patres conscripti? quorum auctoritas turpissimo cuique et
10 sceleratissimo ludibrio est. ubiubi M. Tullius leges iudicia rem publicam
defendit atque in hoc ordine ita moreratur, quasi unus reliquus e familia
2 et] om. P 2 tua] s.l. H2 2 paterer] om. E 2 scirem] s.l. … ret H

3 magis] om. O 3 animi] animi ex animo T : animi ex animus H 2 3 animi]
iudicio animi ratione magis quam morbo animi procacitate (tate in ras.) petulantia I
3 petulantia ista] ista petulantia : ista p. ista (ista1 del.) V: ista tua petulantia in mg.
AldLugdBas 3 cum] in mg. Ald : quoniam AldGrutRomVen 4 modestiam]
moderantiam I 4 respondebo tibi] respondebo breviter tibi O 5 quam] que O
5 cepisti] accepisti K, ac- del. K1: coepisti BTDR 5 audiendo] dicendo
5 amittas] ammittas T 6 quos implorem] del. Wölfflin 6 diripi] ab eo diripi Mp:
deripi N 7 atque] om. E: s.l. V 7 praedae Eussner] perfidiae AldGrut: locum
M: perfidiae locum V 1Ald in mg. , LugdBasRom, locum del. V2 7 apud] om., s.l.
K2: aput H: ne aput P: an apudGrutRom 7 populum Romanum] r. p. T: populum r.
Z 8 largitionibus] om. Z 8 se ipse] se ipsum EV : sese Mp AldLugdBasGrut-
RomVen 8 ac fortunas suas] fortunasque suas I: suasque fortunas Hb 8 venales
habeat] habeat venales Z: venales habebat N 9 turpissimo] om. E 10 et scel-
eratissimo] om. R: et celeratissimo E: et sceratissimo O 10 ludibrio est] est
ludibrio M: est ludibrio est H 10 ubiubi] ubi K 1HbV1«BasGrutRomVenSB (sed
ubi2 s.l. K2V2, del. M) est add. Reynolds 10 iudiciarem] r. p. audacia A: iudiciaque
p. r. H b: iudicia p. r. R: iuditiaque rei p. V 10 iudicia ] audacia : ac iudicia N
10 rem publicam] r. p. : rei p. P: p. r. NLAldLugdBasGrutRom 11 hoc] om. :
Ald in mg. 11 ita moderatur] moderatur ita T 11 ita] om., in mg. V 11 reli-
quus] ereliquis R: reliqus M 11 e familia] e om. A: effamilia B: ex familia KR
Chapter 4 Text known as Sallust's invectives 151
INVECTIVE AGAINST MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO
1. It would be hard for me to put up with your abuse, Marcus T ullius, and
it would bother me, if I believed your lack of restraint to be more a
1
matter of considered opinion than a disease of your mind. However since

I note neither measure nor modesty in your words, 2 I shall respond in
kind, so that if you felt any pleasure in issuing abuse,3 you may banish it
by paying attention to similarly foul words.
To whom, Fathers of the Senate, shall I complain, to whom appeal 4
that our state is being torn asunder and turned into plunder for each and
every impudent taker?5 To the Roman people who are so corrupted with
bribery that they offer their wealth and indeed their very selves for sale?6
Or to you, Fathers of the Senate, whose reputation every disgraceful,
criminal layabout ridicules? Where so ever Marcus Tullius may find him-
self, he sticks up for laws, legal processes and state,7 manipulating them
here in this establishment, as though he were the last remaining
1 Quoted by Quint. 4, 1, 68. See ch. 3, p.111. Cf. In Vat. 1, 1.The author obviously
imitates Sallust here, cf. aequo animo paterer in Sall. Iug. 31, 21.
2 Another Sallustian phrase, cf. Sall. Cat. 11, 4; 38, 4.
3 On maledicta see Powell 2007, 10.
4 Cf. Flacc. 4; Verr. 2, 5, 126; Mur. 88; De or. 3, 214; Sall. Iug. 14, 17. The re-
moval from the text of quos implorem as suggested by E. Wölf flin might be
plausible (there is a clear incongruity with the construction that follows, which is
an AcI). However, this expression is probably used as a frequently repeated cice-
ronian formula. Cf. Eussner 1879, 204; Vretska, 1961, II 12.
5 Cf. Sall. Iug. 31, 10, 18.
6 Another attempt to imitate Sallust, cf. Sall. Iug. 31, 25; Cat.10, 4.
7 Cf. Cass. Dio 46, 20, 2; Cic. Phil. 8, 8; Sest. 98; Sen.Suas. 6, 26, 14; Hor. Ep. 1,
16, 40.
viri clarissimi, Scipionis Africani, ac non reperticius, accitus ac paulo

ante insitus huic urbi civis.
2. An vero, M. T ulli, facta tua ac dicta obscura sunt? an non ita a
pueritia vixisti, ut nihil flagitiosum corpori tuo putares, quod alicui col-
5 libuisset? aut scilicet istam immoderatam eloquentiam apud M. Pisonem
non pudicitiae iactura perdidicisti? itaque minime mirandum est, quod
eam flagitiose venditas, quam turpissime parasti. verum, ut opinor, splen-
dor domesticus tibi animos tollit, uxor sacrilega ac periuriis delibuta,ilia
f
matris paelex, tibi iucundior atque obsequentior quam parenti par est.
10 domum ipsam tuam vi et rapinis funestam tibi ac tuis comparasti: vide-
licet, ut nos commonefacias, quam conversa res sit, cum in ea domo ha-
bites, homo flagitiosissime, quae P. Crassi, viri clarissimi fuit.
1 viri clarissimi] viri om. BG: viri Scipionis audacissimi Z: clarissimi viri KH b
1 Africani] affricani NKBILHbZEMpHP: om. R: affricam O 1 ac non] ac si non
sit Z 1 reperticius] repertius M: repertitius L Ald in mg. : reptitius AldBasGrut-
Rom: irreptitius Ald in mg., Lugd 1 accitus] accito N: a(d)scitus SB 3 facta tua
ac dicta] facta tua ac dicta tua N 3 tua ac dicta] tua ac (aut BX) dicta I: ac (an E)
dicta tua BasGrut 3 ita] ita om. Mp 5 istam] istam om. O 5 immoder-
atam] moderatam HOPM1, im s.l. M2 6 pudicitiae] puditiae Q 6 perdidicisti]
prodidisti H b: perdidisti QPMp 6 itaque] ita N 6 minime] enim me B: non
Hb: om. QL 6 mirandum est] mirandum est minime R 7 eam] iam T: ita O
7 flagitiose] flagitiose hic rasura venditas I 7 venditas] uti dicas B 8 tollit]
attolit BasGrut, at s.l. V 8 periuriis] periurans B: pervariis M 8 delibuta
TAld] debilitata rell.: debilitate N: debelitata B: dedita R: debitata LPO: delibitata P
9 filia matris] filia per matris Q 9 paelex] seplex K 9 matris paelex] paelex
matrix Mp 9 obsequentior quam] om. G 10 ipsam] istam HPM
10 vi] om. QHb 10 funestam] funestram O 10 tuis] tuis in ras. I2 10 com-
parasti] parasti, con s.l. R: parasti E 1 1 videlicet] videt Mp 1 1 conversa]
servata V 1 1 res sit] TG: res sit p. B: res p. sit N LugdBas: sit res p.
XSHPOVMpAldGrutRom, sit r. p. QLHbEMRZ 11 in ea] mea Q 12 habites ]
habitares rell. Bas: habitatores O: habitas AldGrutRom 12 flagitiosissime] flagi-
tiosissimo D 12 P.] publii ERZOH 2PM 12 Crassi, viri clarissimi] c. v . R
12 Crassi] c. ERH 2PM 12 viri clarissimi] v. c. AKTGDE: vir con- H 2: ut c. B:
om. I 12 clarissimi] consularis ZONQLH bMpAldLugdBasGrutRom: om. P
12 viri clarissimi fuit] fuit viri clarissimi M
relative of illustrious Scipio Africanus8 rather than the debutant, the neo-
phyte, the city novice he in fact is.9
2. Perhaps, Marcus Tullius, you suppose that your words and deeds
remain concealed? 10 Have you not perchance conducted yourself from
your very childhood in such a way as to consider nothing too sordid for
your own body so long as it provided gratif ication for someone else? 11
Aye, without a doubt, it was without forfeiting your chastity 12 that you
acquired this familiarity with uninhibited eloquence from Marcus Piso!13
In this context it should come as no surprise that you so scandalously
market that which you procured at such discredit.
Nay, I assume rather that the lustre of your home moulded your fine-
character, what with your sacrilegious wife, blemished by her transgress-
ions,14 and your daughter, rival to her mother,15 more delectable and more
compliant to you, than a daughter should be to her father. It was with vi-
olence and loot that you even acquired your house, with dire conse-
quences for you and your family. It would seem that you wish to remind
us how far the state has fallen, with you, a most degenerate man, living in
the home that had belonged to the distinguished Publius Crassus.16
8 Meant ironically, because Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (236–183 B.C.),

politician, was very often mentioned by Cicero in his speeches. Cf. Verr. 2, 4,
79 ff. and Vretska 1961, II 17–18.
9 Cf. Sall. Cat. 31, 7; Cic. Sull. 23.
10 Cf. Sall. Iug. 64, 5; Hist. 1, 44, 5.
11 Cf. Cic. Cat. 1, 13; Phil. 14, 5, 14; 4, 6, 15; Sall.Cat. 51, 9. See also Sall. 13; 17.
12 Cf. Sall. 7.
13 Cf. Pis. 68–70; Phil. 2, 3; Brut. 310; Cass. Dio 46, 5, 1. Marcus Pupius Piso
Frugi (Calpurnianus), consul in 61 BC, was in his youth a promising orator and
Cicero’s friend. See alsoVretska 1961, II 21f.; Ernout 52; SB 364. Such a charge
of sexual misconduct was a rhetorical commonplace, cf. Adams 1982, 195 f.;
Craig 2004, 191, 202.
14 See ch. 2, p.53. See also Ernout53. Terentia’s half-sister was a Vestal Virgin and
was accused of having sexual relation with Catiline in 73BC (cf. Asc. 91). Here
this case is transferred by the author to Terentia herself.
15 Quoted in a manuscript, containing Serv. In Aen. VI, 623. See ch. 3, p. 112. Cf.
Cic. Cluent. 70, 199; Or. 30, 108; Verr. 2, 1, 122; In Sall. 21. See also Zielin-
ski 31912, 15; Becker 1973, 745; Ernout 53; Opelt 1965, 48.
16 Cicero bought a house from Marcus Licinius Crassus the ‘triumvir ’, a son of
Publius Licinius Crassus, consul in 97 BC. See Vretska 1961, II 27, Ernout 53.
3. atque haec cum ita sint, tamen se Cicero dicit in concilio deorum
immortalium fuisse, inde missum huic urbi civibusque custodem ***
absque carnif icis nomine, qui civitatis incommodum in gloriam suam
ponit. quasi vero non illius coniurationis causa fuerit consulatus tuus et
5 idcirco res publica disiecta eo tempore, quo te custodem habebat.
Sed, ut opinor, illa te magis extollunt, quae post consulatum cum T er-
entia uxore de re publica consuluisti, cum legis Plautiae iudicia domo
faciebatis, ex coniuratis aliquos pecunia condemnabas, cum tibi alius
Tusculanam, alius Pompeianam villam exaedificabat, alius domum eme-
10 bat: qui vero nihil poterat, is erat calumniae proximus, is aut domum
tuam oppugnatum venerat aut insidias senatui fecerat, denique de eo tibi
compertum erat.
1 haec cum ] cum haec Hb: haec om., s.l. R 1 ita] om. Q 1 tamen] in
ras. I2 1 se Cicero dicit ] cicero se dicit AldLugdBasGrut 1 concilio] con-
silio NQV 1 deorum] om. P 2 inde] exinde Z: inde te I 2 missum] immis-
sum V 2 civibusque custodem] custodem civibusque Hb: post custodem lacunam
latere susp. Reitzenstein 3 carnificis] add. fuisse QH b 3 civitatis] civitates
B: vitans del., s.l. civitatis K 2 3 in gloriam suam] in suam gloriam N 3 in]
om. I 4 vero] om., s.l. H1: quasi vero, s.l. sed ita loqu … M 2 4 coniurationis
causa] causa coniurationis R 4 tuus] om., in mg. V 5 et idcirco] non idcirco
V: et non idcirco Z: et iccirco H b 5 disiecta eo] disiecta est eo RZ 5 tempore]
tempore erat I: tempore est H b 5 quo] quod Baiter Reynolds fort. r ecte susp.
5 te] om. B 5 custodem] custodem te P 5 habebat] habeat BP 1: habuit Z
6 extollunt] extolluit Z: exextollunt Mp 7 Terentia] terentiana M 1: na del. M2
Mp: otrencia O 7 consuluisti] consuisti M 7 Plautiae] placiae K: plauticae E:
planciae VR 7 domo ] domi QLHb«Bas: dono B 8 faciebatis] s.l. s (=facie-
bas) E: faciebas Mp 8 aliquos Kurfess] alio Z: alios ceteri: exilio alios suppl.
Halm 8 pecunia] om. E: peccunia GOMp 8 condemnabas] condempnabas
NIHbMH: condempnabatis, tis del., s s.l. EBas: condonabas V 9 Tusculanam
EM] -um rell. 9 villam] om. K1 9 exaedificabat] edificabat AIMBas: hedifi-
cabat V 10 erat calumniae proximus] calumniae proximus erat A 10 erat]
fuerat V 10 calumniae] caluminiae, mi del. B: Catilinae WirzReynoldsSB 10
aut] autem M 11 domum tuam oppugnatum venerat aut] is domum tuam aut
venerat aut R 11 denique de eo] de eo denique R 12 tibi compertum] comper-
tum tibi K 12 compertum] comperto N 12 erat] fuerat I
3. And yet, despite all this,17 Cicero asserts that he was himself pres-
ent at the council of the immortal gods, 18 whence he was dispatched to
the city and its citizens as a guardian (***not being named an execu-
tioner),19 who caused the state injury to augment his own glory . As
though your consulship were not the cause of that conspiracy! That is
20
the reason the state was torn apart at that time with you as its guardian!
And yet, so I assume, 21 it was those state decisions that you made to-
gether with your wife Terentia22 after your consulship that elevated you
to a higher status; then holding judicial proceedings following the Plau-
tian law,23 at your own home no less, you censured some of the plotters to
pay fines,24 one of them constructing a villa for you at Tusculum, another
a villa at Pompeii,25 yet another buying you your residence.
Such a man however as could bestow nothing on you, such a man was
most liable to your false accusations,26 either accused of having attacked
your house or of plotting against the Senate. Of such a person’s guilt, you
were, in sum, most certain.27
17 Cass. Dio 46, 12, 1. See Kurfess 1913c, 150.

18 Cf. Cic. In Cat. 2, 13, 29; Dom. 141; Phil. 3, 34.
19 See Koster 1980, 181 f. On the carnifex see Nisbet 1961, 196.
20 In 63 BC Cicero was elected consul and managed to convince the Senate of the
seriousness of the conspiracy led by Catilina, who otherwise might have been a
candidate. (Cf. Sull. 67; Planc. 85; Fam. 5, 7.)
21 See ch. 1, p. 19.
22 Terentia was said to have had considerable inf luence over Cicero, inciting him
against the followers of Catiline. T erentia is often mentioned in the Letters to
Atticus and in Letters to Friends 14. Cf. also Plut.Cic. 41. See Koster 1980, 182.
23 Cf. Cat. 31, 4; Cael. 70 and Vretska 1961, II 33. Lex Plautia was proposed in
89 BC by the tribune Marcus Plautius Silvanus. Its purpose was to punish trans-
gressors of the public order severely. Here again it is used as a common anticice-
ronian locus, not necessarily corresponding to the historical truth. See SB 366.
24 On a conjecture by Halm here, see ch. 3, p. 144. See also Schelle 1967, 193 f.
25 Cf. Cic. Att. II, 1, 11; IV, 2,5; VII, 5, 3; Gell. N. A. XII, 12.
26 Cf. Cass. Dio 46, 4, 1. See Kurfess 1913c, 150.
27 Sall. Cat. 30, 4. Cf. Liv . U. C. 38, 45, 9. See also Cicero’ s letter to his ex-col-
league, proconsul in Macedonia, C. Antonius (Fam. 5 (V.5), 2): nam comperisse
me non audeo dicere, ne forte id ipsum verbum ponam quod abs te aiunt falso in
me solere conferri, and Shackleton Bailey’s commentary: “The verb comperire
had become a catchword with Cicero’ s enemies, in reference to his espionage
upon the Catilinarians” (Cicero:Epistulae ad familiares, ed. by D. R. Shackleton
Bailey, v. 1. Cambridge 1977; 284).
4. quae si tibi falsa obicio redde rationem quantum patrimonii acceperis,

quid tibi litibus accreverit, qua ex pecunia domum paraveris, T us-
culanum et Pompeianum infinito sumptu aedificaveris, aut, si retices, cui
dubium potest esse: opulentiam istam ex sanguine et miseriis civium
5 parasti?
Verum, ut opinor , homo novus Arpinas, ex L. Crassi familia, illius
virtutem imitatur , contemnit simultatem hominum nobilium, <unam>
rem publicam caram habet, neque terrore neque gratia removetur a vero,
amicitia tantum ac virtus est animi. 5. immo vero homo levissimus,
10 supplex inimicis, amicis contumeliosus, modo harum, modo illarum par-
tium, fidus nemini, levissimus senator, mercennarius patronus, cuius nulla
pars corporis a turpitudine vacat, lingua vana, manus rapacissimae, gula
immensa, pedes fugaces, quae honeste nominari non possunt inhonestis-
sima. atque is cum eius modi sit, tamen audet dicere: ‘o fortunatam natam
15 me consule Romam!’ te consule fortunatam, Cicero?
1 si tibi] sit A: tibi si BG 1 falsa] falsum Z 1 obicio redde] obtio rede O 1

patrimonii] patrimonium V 1 acceperis] acceperas BG 2 quid] quod B:
quantum O 2 litibus] laudibus BG 2 qua] quam Z 2 pecunia] pugna E:
peccunia Mp 3 et] aut V 3 Pompeianum] pompeianum agrum QH bL 3in-
finito sumptu] quo sumptu infinito I 3 sumptu] sumpto O 3 aedificaveris] ex-
aedificaveris 3 cui] qui HM 1 cui s.l. M 4 dubium potest esse ] potest du-
bium esse : cui potest esse dubium I: quin add. (praeter H) JordanReynoldsSB
4 et miseriis civium] civium ac miseriis ZN 4 et O] ac : om. V 4 miseriis]
miserias B: miserorum V: visceribus AldLugdBasGrut 5 parasti Kurfess] para-
veris L ed.princ.Reynolds: parasses V : pararis JordanSB 6 homo novus] novus
homo O 6 Arpinas] harpinas D 6 L. Rawson] M. Bas: Marci MpO: C. Marii
GlareanGrutVenSB 6 familia] familias G 6 illius] eius BasGrut 7 virtu-
tem] virtutes I 7 simultatem] simultantem H b: simultans E 7 hominum] om-
nium N 7 nobilium] unam add. Jachmann 8 rem publicam caram] rem publi-
cam charam Ald in mg., Lugd: populi Romani curamBasGrutRom 8 habet] habeo
B 8 removetur a Reitzenstein] removetur. aliud : com movetur. Illud BasGrut
3 a … animi del. Jordan 8 a vero] om. I 9 amicitia T2] amicitiae BasGrut:
om. I: iustitia SB 9 ac] om. I 9 virtus] virtutis H 1 (corr. H2)VBasGrut 9
immo] imo E: inmo Q 9 levissimus] letissumus H: leti sumus O 10 supplex]
duplex N 1 1 mercennarius] mercenarius Mp 1 1 patronus] patronis BG
12 pars corporis] corporis pars A 12 corporis] s.l. Z 12 a turpitudine] turpi-
tudinis Z 14 possunt inhonestissima] possunt inhonestima K: sunt post inhones-
tissima s.l. V, n e om. H1 s.l. H2 14 atque] at qui B: at N 14 is] ras. ex his K:
his QMp 14 eius] huius VRI 14 modi] modo MH, i corr. H2 14 audet
dicere] dicere audeat BG 14 o] om. RHM 14 natam] om. ZHM 15 me]
se R 15 consule] consulem B 15 Romam] Romam alt. add. W interbottom-
ReynoldsSB 15 consule fortunatam] fortunatam consule (-ulere K1)
4. If you consider my charges misplaced, feel free to provide an expla-

nation: how much did you inherit, 28 what is your added wealth from law-
suits, with what funds did you obtain your residence and, at such extraordi-
nary expense, construct villas at Tusculum and Pompeii?29 Or else, if you
choose to keep your silence, who could query that you acquired this opu-
lence of yours from the blood and deprivations of our citizens?30
Nay, I would assume rather that a new man from Arpinum, 31
a man from
the family of Lucius Crassus would imitate the excellence of that man’ s
32
character, would shun feuds with those of noble rank, and would hold the
state alone dear.33 Neither fear nor favours would distance him from the path
of truth.34 Friendship and integrity alone would characterise his mentality.35
5. But on the contrary this man is totally unreliable, deferential with
his enemies, abusive to his friends, one moment he supports one side, at
the next the other,36 loyal to nobody, a thoroughly undependable senator,
a patron for a fee; 37 there is no part of his body that does not cause dis-
taste: his conceited tongue, his rapacious hands, his elephantine gullet,
his scampering feet; those parts which cannot gracefully be referred to,
are in his case most especially disgraceful.38 And despite the fact that he
is such as he is, he has the audacity to say:39 ‘Oh Rome born fortunate to
have me as a consul!’40 Fortunate in your consulship, Cicero?
28 Cf. Plut. Cic. 8, 3.

29 Cf. Cic. Att. 13 (I.3), 6.
31 Cf. Iuv. 8, 236–244. See below p.158–159. See Ippoliti, L. Il luogo di nascita di
Marco T ullio Cicer one, Roma, 1936; see especially the bibliography to this
book. See also above ch. 1, p.20. On homo novus as a commonplace in abuse of
one’s origin, see Opelt 1965, 148 f. Cf. Craig 2004, 190 f.
33 Cf. Cic. Phil. 13, 7.
34 Cf. Cass. Dio 46, 16, 4; Plut. Crass. 7. This might be an imitation of sallustian
irony, cf. Sall. Cat. 49, 1. See also Schmid 1993, 47.
35 See ch. 2, p. 32.
36 See Ernout 55.
37 Cf. Sall. 10. See Opelt 1965, 148.
38 Cf. Epist. ad Caes. II, 9, 2; Rutil. 1, 18 (Rhet. Lat. Min., ed. Halm, p.11). See ch.
3, p. 113 f. See also Nisbet 1958, 30ff.; Syme 1964, 348ff.; Koster 1980, 184. Cf.
Cic. Phil. 2, 47; Fam. 9, 22, 3; Sen. Contr. 2, 4, 6.
40 A line from Cicero’ poem De consulatu, fr. 17 Morel. Quoted by Quintilian, cf.
9, 4, 41 and 11, 1, 24; also by Juvenal, cf. Sat. 10, 114–126, and Diomedes, cf.
Art. Gram. I. In: Gram. Lat. (ed. Keil) II 466, 1. See V retska 1961, I 17 ff.; II
30 ff. Cf. Cic. Cat. 2, 4, 7. See also Ewbank 1933, 28, 77, 124. Usually the line
immo vero infelicem et miseram, quae crudelissimam proscriptio-

nem eam perpessa est, cum tu perturbata re publica metu perculsos
omnes bonos parere crudelitati tuae cogebas, cum omnia iudicia, omnes
leges in tua libidine erant, cum tu sublata lege Porcia, erepta libertate om-
5 nium nostrum vitae necisque potestatem ad te unum revocaveras. 6.atque
parum quod impune fecisti, verum etiam commemorando exprobras
neque licet oblivisci his servitutis suae. egeris, oro te, Cicero, profeceris
quidlibet: satis est perpessos esse: etiamne aures nostras odio tuo onera-
bis, etiamne molestissimis verbis insectabere? ‘cedant arma togae,
10 concedat laurea linguae.’ quasi vero togatus
1 immo] inimo O 1 vero infelicem] infelicem vero E 1 miseram] miseriam B:

miseram ita, ita del. M 2 crudelissimam proscriptionem] crudelissimam exhedita-
tionem et proscriptionem I 2 eam] illam N: om. Bas: civium «Grut: ea V 2 tu]
om. BGH b 2 perculsos] percussos IH bV: perculsus R 3 parere crudelitati tuae]
crudelitate tua parere E: tuae parere crudelitati I: parere tuae crudelitati Mp: parare c. t.
H1, e corr. H2 3 cum] om., s.l. O 4 leges] lege B: bo leges, del. bo R: bono del.,
s.l. leges M 4 erant] erat Q: erunt O 4 tu] om. ABE: tui, i del. V 4 sublata]
subblata B 4 lege] lego O 4 Porcia] Portio B 4 libertate] libidine N 5
omnium nostrum vitae necisque potestatem] om. H1, s.l. H2 5 revocaveras] revo-
caras B 6 parum ] aut qui inpune parum quid fecisti verum O: parum est ZI«Bas-
Grut 6 quod] om. B 6 impune] inpugne Mp: inpune HO 6 exprobras] ex-
probas KV 7 oblivisci his] his oblivisci N 7 his NK2CH2MZIMp] iis AFD1:
is O: hiis K1D2V: piis Bas: om. ERH1: del. AldLugdGrutF.SchmidtReynoldsSB: civi-
bus Paiser: nobis Kuznetsov 7 servitutis suae] servitutis tuae I: suae servitutis R
7 te] om. R 7 profeceris] profeceras B: perfeceris H bZVBasGrut: profeciris E
8 quidlibet] quodlibet BGH bBasGrutRom 8 perpessos] nos perpessos H b 8
nostras] tuas R 8 odio] hodio V 8 tuo] om. R 9 onerabis] honorabis IOV,
e s.l. I2 9 etiamne2ZVen.Crisp] etiam in H: etiam im- O: etiam NRMpEMV1:
et tam I 9 molestissimis] immodestissimis I: molestis NQLH b 9 insectabere]
inspectabere CD 1: verbis tuis molestissimis insectabere Mp 10 linguae] lingua Q
On the contrary, miserable and hapless, Rome endured that totally piti-
less proscription;41 then you, the state in disarray, forced all honest fear-
stricken people to obey your maliciousness!42
Then all the legal proceedings, all the laws, were at your beck and
call;43 then, having annulled the Porcian law 44 and arrogated all our lib-
erty, you usurped the power of life and death over us all.45
6. It is not enough that you got away with this unpunished! 46 Yo u
even affront the people reminding them of your actions, and they are not
permitted to forget their slavery. I implore you, Cicero, having acted and
having achieved what you wanted: it is enough that the people have suf-
fered. Will you burden our ears with your hatred; will you harass us with
revolting words:47 ‘Let arms give way to the toga, and the military laur-
el-wreath to the power of speech’?48 As if you were a man of the toga and
was translated as “Oh fortunate Rome, born in my consulship”, but I think “born
fortunate to have me as a consul” makes more sense. (Cf.Sall. 7, where natam is
omitted). The arrangement of words is not successful in this line, and it was a
well-known target for Cicero’ critics in Antiquity (cf. Fourteen satires of Juve-
nal, ed. by J. D. Duff, Cambridge, 1966, 342).
41 Cf. Sall. 6.
42 The sentence is overloaded by standard invective terms.Crudelissimam and cru-
delitati within one phrase underline the author’s wish to show his knowledge of
rhetorical vocabulary. Crudelis is a standard epithet for political despotism in
Cicero (cf. Verr. 2, 1, 82; 2, 4, 73; 2, 5, 143; 145; Cat. 2, 14; Dom. 75, 94; Phil.
13, 18; Rep. 1, 44; Fam. 12, 12, 2; Att. 9, 10, 3, etc.). See also Dunkle 1967, 165,
169 f.; Craig 2004, 202.
43 Libido as another term of political invective represented everything that was op-
posed to lex (cf. Cic. Verr. 2, 3, 82; 117; Sall. Iug. 31, 7; Ps.-Sall. Ep. ad Caes. 1,
3, 6; Liv. 2, 3, 1–5). See Dunkle 1967, 161 f., 166, 168 f. Here the author makes
the opposition of lex and libido especially transparent: omnes leges in tua libi-
dine erant. As a description of criminal capriciousness and despotism this term
can be traced as far back as the time of Cato the Elder. Cf. C. Gracch. ORF2 49;
Cic. Sen. 49; Liv. 39, 42, 6–7.
44 Cf. Sall. Cat. 51, 21 and Cic. Rep. 2, 54. Lex Porcia, which forbade scourging and
the death penalty for Roman citizens was proposed in 198BC by the tribune of the
commons Publius Porcius Laeca and passed at the insistence of Cato the Elder
who was then praetor. Cf. Liv. U. C. X, 9. See also Morstein-Marx 2004, 109 ff.
45 Cf. Sall. Iug. 31, 9.
46 Another attempt to imitate Sallust’s style, cf. Sall. Iug. 31, 22: parum est impune
male fecisse.
48 Cf. Sall. 7. A line from Cicero’ s poem De consulatu, fr. 16 Morel. Quoted by
Quint., 11, 1, 24. Cf.Laus Calp. Pis. 34f.; Plin. N. H. 7, 117; Plut. Dem. et Cic. 2;
Cic. Pis. 74; Phil. 2, 15ff.; 2, 17; 2, 19;Off. 1, 77. Cf. also Vretska 1961, II 52ff.
et non armatus ea quae gloriaris confeceris, atque inter te Sullamque dic-

tatorem praeter nomen imperii quicquam interfuerit.
7. Sed quid ego plura de tua insolentia commemorem, quem Minerva
omnis artis edocuit, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus in concilio deorum ad-
5 misit, Italia exulem umeris suis reportavit? oro te, Romule Arpinas, qui
egregia tua virtute omnis Paulos, Fabios, Scipiones superasti, quem tan-
dem locum in hac civitate obtines? Quae tibi partes rei publicae placent?
quem amicum, quem inimicum habes? cui in civitate insidias fecisti, an-
cillaris. quo auctore de exilio tuo Dyrrhachio redisti, eum insequeris.
10 quos tyrannos appellabas, eorum potentiae faves.
1 ea quae] eamque K 1: ea om. E 1 gloriaris] gloris, aris s.l. I2 1 confeceris]

feceris B: confeceris om. K1: perfeceris H b 1 atque] om. B 1 te] ne T 1 corr.
T2: om. Mp: se N 1 Sullamque] scillamque R: et sillam Z: syllamque KNE: sillam
Mp: sillamque BIHQLH b 2 dictatorem] oictatorem M 2 quicquam] quicquid
KO: non ante quicquam in mg. ins . V 2 interfuerit V «] interfuit 3 quid]
quod B 3 plura de tua insolentia] de tua insolentia plura T 4 omnis artis] artis
om. QLH b: omnes artes NERMVZOI 4 edocuit] educuit B: docuit Z 4 Opti-
mus Maximus] optimus et maximus V 4 Optimus] om. R: optumus QH b 4
concilio] concilium NERZMO: cilium H , corr. H2: –ia F: conciliorum Mp: consilio
1
QHb 5 admisit] amisit O 5 umeris] humeris NBIQH bEMHO 5 suis] suis

humeris N: suis om. Mp 5 Romule] om. QHb 5 Arpinas] Arpinos V 5 qui]
om. E 6 tua] om. E 6 virtute] virtute tua Z 6 Scipiones] cipiones, s s.l. I2
6 superasti] superastis Z 7 tandem] titandem Mp: tandem locum tandem O 7
obtines? quae tibi] omnes paulos fabios, sed in mg. corr. V 7 obtines] optines
NKDIHMp 7 placent] parent in mg. placent Mp 8 quem2 ] et quem
AFNV: et K 8 habes] habens K1 8 cui] cum A 8 in] s.l. V 8 fecisti]
fecistis Z 8 fecisti] ei add. WirzReynoldsSB 9 ancillaris E] –es rell.: ancilares
R 9 auctore WirzKurfessReynoldsSB] iure cum BasGrut 9 de] om. O
9 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp: dyrachio L: dyr-
racio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO: Dyrrachio SB 9 redisti] cecidisti
B: redidisti Q: redires H b 9 eum insequeris Hb«]: eum sequeris Grut: tua
consequeris I 10 appellabas] appellas BV 10 eorum] nunc post eorum N, s.l.
V 10 faves] funes O
not a bearer of arms when you did all that you take pride in! As if there
were some other dif ference, apart from your of ficial title, between you
and the dictator Sulla!
7. But why should I speak further of your arrogance, to whom
Minerva taught all art; 49 who Jupiter , the Most Excellent and the
Greatest, admitted to the council of the gods; 50 whom Italy bore back
from exile upon her shoulders? 51 I beseech you, oh Romulus of Arpi-
num,52 who surpassed by outstanding merit all the Pauli, the Fabii, the
Scipiones,53 tell us what place do you hold in this society? On which
sides do you want to take your stand in the state? Who is your friend and
who your enemy? You, busy sucking up to the very person you had been
plotting against in this polity! 54 You busy harassing the man 55 through
whose influence56 you came back from your exile at Dyrrhachium!57 You
are now positively disposed to the power of people whom you used to
call tyrants.58
See also Ewbank 1933, 77, 123f. The manuscripts read ‘laurea laudi’ instead of
‘laurea linguae’. Because of the preferable alliteration Cicero himself perhaps
preferred ‘laudi’ to ‘linguae’, and the variant linguae is in all probability satiri-
cal. Cic. Pis. 74 and Off. 1, 77 read also ‘laudi’. See also A. Dyck, A Commen-
tary on Cicero, De officiis. Ann Arbor 1996, 208 f.
49 Cf. Cic. Dom. 144.
50 Cf. Cic. Cat. 1, 11; 33; 3, 21; 22; Sull. 40; Dom. 92. Cf. Vretska 1961, II 55 and
on Cicero’s relationship with the gods see J. V ogt, Ciceros Glaube an Rom ,
Stuttgart, 11935 (=1963); 79. See also Quint. 11, 1, 24 and ch. 3, p. 111.
51 Cf. Cic. In sen. 39; Dom. 40; 72. See Hejnic 1956, 260.
52 Quoted by Quint. 9, 3, 89. See ch. 3, p. 111. On Cicero’ s image of
Romulus as a beloved father of his country see Cic.Rep. 1, 64; 2, 15, 23; 5, 1. On
Cicero’s identifying with Romulus cf. Sen. Contr. 7, 2, 5–6; Iuv . 8, 236–244;
Cic. Pis. 6. Cf. also Cat. 49, 1. See Lavery 1973, 86–89. Cf. above p. 156–157.
53 Cf. Cic. Vat. 28; Pis. 14, 58; Verr. 2, 5, 14.
54 Pompey is meant. See Meyer 31922, 164; Ernout 81 f. Shackleton Bailey sus-
pects here a travesty of Sall. Cat. 49, 1.
55 See ch. 2, p.33. Pompey is meant here again; historical truth is not taken into ac-
count for rhetorical reasons.
56 Cf. Cic. Pis. 35. See also Ernout 82.
57 Originally the name of the headland under which the city of Epidamnus was situ-
ated. Cf. Cic. Planc. 97, 98; De div. I, 68; Pis. 92, 93, 96; Ad fam. XIV, 1, 7; 3, 4;
Att. I, 17, 2; III, 8, 1; 22, 4; IV
, 1, 4; VIII, 12a, 3;Brut. 3, 6; 4, 1; 7, 2; 14, 4; Paus.
6, 10. See also Schöll 1902, 160 f.
58 The accusation of political despotism was a rhetorical commonplace, most pre-
ferred especially by Cicero. Cf. Cic.Verr. 2, 1, 82; 2, 3, 25, 31, 1 5; 2, 4, 51; 2, 5,
21, 103, 117; Leg. Agr. 2, 32; 3, 5; Cat. 2, 14; Red. Sen. 12; Dom. 75, 94, 110;
Sest. 32, 109; Vat. 23; Pis. 18, 24; Mil. 35, 80; Deiot. 33, 34; Phil. 2, 90, 96, 110,
qui tibi ante optimates videbantur, eosdem dementes ac furiosos vocas.

Vatini causam agis, de Sestio male existimas. Bibulum petulantissimis
verbis laedis, laudas Caesarem. quem maxime odisti ei maxime obseque-
ris. aliud stans, aliud sedens sentis de re publica. his male dicis, illos od-
5 isti, levissime transfuga, neque in hac neque in illa parte f idem habens.
1 ante] om. HMOZ 1 optimates] obtimates M 1 videbantur] videbantur op-

timates E 1 eosdem] eos deo E: eosdem nunc LugdBasGrut 2 Vatini] vanii N:
vatinii HbAldLugdBasGrut 2 causam] causas N 2 de Sestio] de sectio E: dis-
ertio R: de sestuo D 2 existimas] estimas B 3 verbis] om., in mg. V lae- 3
dis] om. I 3 laudas Caesarem] Caesarem laudas Z: ce laudas, cedel. Q: collaudas
Hb 3 odisti ei maxime] om. B 4 sentis de re publica] de re p. sentis RBasGrut:
de r. p. sentis E 4 his] hiis V 4 male dicis] maledictis A 2TacXBG: malidicis
M 5 odisti] om., in mg. V 5 in hac neque] om. B 5 hac] hac parte, parte
del. Mp: hoc corr. in mg. V 5 in] om. R 5 illa] hac H bR 5 parte] om. BG
5 habens «LugdBas] habes ed.princ.IncAldGrutRom
Those who had previously seemed to you the best of citizens, you now
dub mad and frenzied. 59 You plead for Vatinius but look down on Ses-
tius.60 You maim Bibulus with most impudent words and you praise
Caesar.61 Those whom you hated the most, you thoroughly toady up to
now. When standing you have one view of the state, when sitting the op-
posite. Y ou abuse some; detest others; you, a totally unreliable ren-
egade,62 faithful neither to one side, nor to the other!
117; 13, 17–18; 14, 15. On the charge of tyrannis in Roman political invective,
see Dunkle 1967, 151 ff.
59 Cf. Cic. Sest. 97; Fam. 20 (I. 9), 17.
60 Cf. Cic. Quint. 8 (II, 4), 1. See also Ernout 82; SB 371.
61 On Vatinius, Sestius, Bibulus and Caesar see the historical context in ch. 1,
p. 17 f. Cf. Sall. 12; Cic. Fam. 117 (II, 17), 6–7. See also SB 371.
62 Cf. Cass. Dio 36, 44, 2; 39, 63, 5; 46, 3, 4, who had « as an epithet for
Cicero. See Meyer 31922, 165; Opelt 1965, 148. Cf. Kurfess 1913c, 149 f.
IN C. SALLVSTIVM CRISPVM INVECTIVA
1. Ea demum magna voluptas est, C. Sallusti, aequalem ac parem verbis

vitam agere, neque quicquam tam obscaenum dicere, cui non ab initio
pueritiae omni genere facinoris aetas tua respondeat, ut omnis oratio
5 moribus consonet. neque enim qui ita vivit ut tu aliter ac tu loqui potest,
neque qui tam inloto sermone utitur, vita honestior est.
Quo me praevertam, patres conscripti, unde initium sumam? maius
enim mihi dicendi onus imponitur, quo notior est uterque nostrum, quod
aut si de mea vita atque actibus huic conviciatori respondero, invidia
10 gloriam consequetur, aut si huius facta mores omnem aetatem nudavero,
in idem vitium incidam procacitatis, quod huic obicio. id vos si forte of-
fendimini, iustius huic quam mihi suscensere debetis, qui initium intro-
duxit. 2. ego dabo operam ut et pro me minimo cum fastidio respondeam
et in hunc minime mentitum esse videatur. scio me, patres conscripti, in
2 Ea] a M: eam V 2 magna] magna tibi V 2 C. Sallusti] sallusti K: G. S. B:

: l del. D 2 ac parem] atque parem I:
g. Salusti E: crispe s. R: crispe salusti IOMpV
om. E: aut parem N 2 verbis vitam] vitam verbis EV 2 verbis] turpissimis
verbis Mp 3 non ab] non in ab B: nonom. QHb 4 omni] in omni O 4 tua re-
spondeat] tua non respondeat H b 4 tua] sua SB 4 oratio V«] ratio 5 ta]
i
vita E 5 ac] quam I 5 potest] non potest, non del. I 6 inloto] in loco BO:
illoto NIEMMpQLH b 6 vita] in vita V 6 honestior] honestiore B 7 prae-
vertam] praevertamur B: praevio V : vertam AldLugdBasVenRom 7 initium]
iniciam Mp 7 sumam] summam KN: sumamus B 8 enim] eo V : om. E
8 dicendi onus] dicendi honus I: onus dicendi Z: onus imponitur dicendi O: dicendi
om. N: dicendo Q: in dicendo H b: dicendi mihi Mp: mihi om. L 8 imponitur]
inponitur H 8 notior] nitior H1, corr. H2 8 nostrum] quid add. SB 9 uat i]s
si aut NA2HbZ LugdBas: aut om. VMp 9 de] de om. N 9 mea vita] vita mea
9 atque] aut H bZ: adque V 9 actibus] actibus nostris AldLugdBasGrutRom
9 conviciatori] convitiatori L 9 respondero] respondeo KNH 1OZ corr. s.l. H2
10 invidia gloriam] invidiam gloria I 10 consequetur A] -atur rell.
10 omnem aetatem] aetatem omnem H b 10 nudavero] denudavero A 11 in]
tum Mp 11 idem] incidem O 11 incidam procacitatis] incidam in idem vitium
procacitatis QHb: procacitatis incidam RI: incidam procacitatis vitium N 11 quod]
quae B: illud V 11 id] huic Mp 1111 si forte] suffortem Q: id forte si vos Hb:
vos om. BTE 12 offendimini] ostendimini Q 12 iustius] istius TQ: iustis O
12 huic quam mihi] mihi quam huic quam mihi,postea corr. Q 12 huic] om. Mp
12 suscensere FTD] succ- rell.AldLugdBasGrutRom: succurrere Q: succendere
V 12 debetis K2M2] debeatis : debebitis bi del. V1 12 qui] quam H: quem M
12 initium] idem initium Q 13 ego dabo] ego vero dabo I 13 et] om. BO
13 pro] om. H1, s.l. H2 13 cum] om. I 14 in hunc] hunc K 1 (n in ras. ) in
s.l. K2 14 mentitum esse videatur] mentitus esse videar QH bVK2«AldLugdBas-
GrutRom: mentitum esse videar Mp: m. e. videantur, n del. N
INVECTIVE AGAINST CAIUS SALLUSTIUS CRISPUS
1. It is at the very least, Caius Sallust, a considerable source of gratifica-

tion that you lead a life that matches and corresponds to your words; you
say nothing so coarse that it would not fully tally, in all manner of activ-
ities, with your conduct from early childhood, in such a way as to render
your speech fully concordant with your character. For a person that lives
as you do, is incapable of speaking in any manner other than the way you
speak; nor can any person who uses such foul language, prove to be more
honourable in his life.
Whither, Fathers of the Senate, shall I turn my attention? Where shall I
commence?1 The more eminent the both of us are, the bigger the burden of
speaking placed on my shoulders.2 You see, if I respond to this contempt-
ible fellow with reference to my way of life and my activities, envy will
result from my brilliance,3 whereas if I expose his conduct, character and
manner of living, I shall fall into the very same fault of effrontery, which I
protest in him. If this offends you, let your anger more appropriately be di-
rected against him than against me, since he set the insults rolling.
2. I shall do my best to answer in defence of myself, with the least
possible contempt, rather than giving a false account of him. I do not –
I recognise – expect much from this my response, Fathers of the Senate;
1 Cf. Cic. De or. 3, 214.

2 Cf. Cic. Vat. 33.
3 Cf. Sall. Iug. 55, 3.
respondendo non habere magnam exspectationem, quod nullum vos sciatis

novum crimen in Sallustium audituros, sed omnia vetera recognituros,
quis et meae et vestrae iam et ipsius aures calent. verum eo magis odisse
debetis hominem, qui ne incipiens quidem peccare minimis rebus posuit
5 rudimentum, sed ita ingressus est, ut neque ab alio vinci possit neque ipse
se omnino reliqua aetate praeterire. 3. itaque nihil aliud studet nisi ut
luculentus cum quovis velitari. longe vero fallitur opinione; non enim
procacitate linguae vitae sordes eluuntur , sed est quaedam calumnia,
quam unus quisque nostrum testante animo suo fert [de eo qui falsum
10 crimen bonis obiectat]. quod si vita istius memoriam vicerit, illam, patres
conscripti, non ex oratione sed ex moribus suis spectare debebitis. iam
dabo operam, quam maxime potuero, breve ut faciam. neque haec alter-
catio nostra vobis inutilis erit, patres conscripti; plerumque enim res pub-
lica privatis crescit inimicitiis, ubi nemo civis qualis sit vir potest latere.
1 respondendo] respondebo N 1 non habere magnam] habet B: magnam non

habere Z 1 sciatis AldLugdBasGrutRomKurfess] atis del., o s.l. K2: scio «Rey-
nolds 2 Sallustium] salustio H b 2 audituros] aucdituros, c del. N 2 sed]
sed om. I 3 quis] quibus VMp 3 iam et ipsius] iam om. I: et etiam ipsius Hb: et
ipsius iam O 3 aures] aures et ipsius Mp 3 verum] om. O 3 eo] ego (?) H b
3 magis] magius E 4 debetis K ] debebitis rell.: debitis Q 4 hominem] om.
VZ (?) 4 qui] quam HO: quod M: quia L 4 quidem] om. E 4 minimis] in
minimis QH bZSB: non cum (cum del.) minimis V 4 posuit] imposuit (im s.l.) V
6 omnino] omnio B: om. QH b: omni VSB: omnino se M 6 praeterire] praeteriit
QHb 6 itaque] ita B 6 aliud] ali ut V 6 studet] quaerit I 6 ut ] om. O«
7 luculentus T Lipsius] lutulentus rell.: luculenter H b: lutulentum Q: lutulentus sa,
sa del. Mp: sus add. EMRZ(?)MpReynoldsSB 7 quovis] quolibet M 7 velitari
LipsiusGrut] volutari rell.: voluptari K1HOV: volutari possit I 7 vero] g BE: qui-
dem R 7 fallitur] falitur B 8 procacitate] procicitate E 8 vitae] om. E 1
s.l. E2 8 sordes] sortes I 8 calumnia] calumpnia quaedam QLHb 9 testante
animo] restante animo Q: animo restante H b 9 suo] om. RQHbMH 9 de eo …
obiectat] del. Jor danReynolds: habent KurfessSB 9 qui K 2] quia FK 1: quod
ANSB: quae O 9 bonis obiectat] bonis obiectas Q: obiectat bonis Hb: bonis om.
Z: obiectant E 10 vita istius] vita ista Q: ista vita Hb 10 istius] ipsius E: illius
N 10 memoriam] memoria V 10 illam Ald in mg.,LugdBasVen] aliam Grut-
Rom, in mg. Ven: aliorum Mp: sed vitam aliam I 11 debebitis] debetis KH bEV-
ROMpBas: habetis I 12 breve ut ] ut breve : breve : brevem H b: ut id
PAldLugdBasGrutRom, s.l. K2V 12 neque] nec E 12 haec] om. E: s.l. K2:
enim Mp 13 nostra] nostro B: nostra p. c. inutilis nobis erit R 13 vobis] nobis
Hb 13 erit] est ri s.l. B 13 patres conscripti] om. Hb 13 enim] om. MpI
14 res publica] p. res R 14 crescit inimicitiis] inimicitiis crescit O 14
qualis] quot Mp 14 sit vir] vir om. Mp: vir sit QLH b 14 potest latere] latere
potest QHb
for you know 4 that you will not hear any new accusation against Sallust
here, but you will recognise all those of old; accusations that have
already been smouldering in my , and your, and even his own ears. Y ou
however should all the more detest this man, who from the outset trans-
gressed not in the minutiae, but entered the scene all guns blazing, so that
no-one else could outdo him till the end of his days, nor could he entirely
outdo himself.
3. He therefore bothers himself with nothing more, fine fellow that he
is, than with attacking whomever he wants. 5 In this however he errs seri-
ously, for life’s blemishes are not purified6 through the looseness of a fel-
low’s tongue. Yet there is a kind of verdict of false accusation, which each
of us in his judgment bears witness to7 [about a person who brings false ac-
cusations against the virtuous]. 8 And if the life of this man overchar ges
your memory, Fathers of the Senate, you must examine it not on the basis
of his speech but of his behaviour. I shall attempt as best I can to be as brief
as possible. This our disagreement will be of some use to you, Fathers of
the Senate; since for the most part af fairs of state evolve through private
quarrels, where no citizen can conceal what kind of man he is.9
4 On sciatis and scio here see SB 372–373.

5 See the interpretation of this passage by J. Lipsius ch. 3, p.138 . Cf. Cic. Verr. 4,
53.
6 Cf. Cic. Phil. 1, 20.
7 Quoted and interpreted by Justus Lipsius see ch. 3, p. 138. Calumniam ferre is
‘to be convicted on a charge of false accusation’, a charge of calumnia was heard
by the same court exactly after the malfunction of the original char ge, cf. Cf.
Cic. Fam. 84 (VIII, 8), 1; Cluent. 163; Dom. 49; Sen. Contr. 9, 4, 18. Cf.
Shackleton Bailey’s commentary in Cicero:Epistulae ad familiares, ed. by D. R.
Shackleton Bailey, v. 1. Cambridge 1977; 397. See also SB, 374–375, who does
not seclude de eo … obiectat. See ch. 2, p. 32.
9 Cf. Aeschin. Tim. 2. See above ch. 1, p. 22.
4. Primum igitur, quoniam omnium maiores C. Sallustius ad unum

exemplum et regulam quaerit, velim mihi respondeat num quid his quos
protulit Scipiones et Metellos ante fuerit aut opinionis aut gloriae quam
eos res suae gestae et vita innocentissime acta commendavit. quod si hoc
5 fuit illis initium nominis et dignitatis, cur non aeque nobis existimetur ,
cuius et res gestae illustres et vita integerrime acta? quasi vero tu sis ab
illis, Sallusti, ortus! quod si esses, nonnullos iam tuae turpitudinis pige-
ret. 5. ego meis maioribus virtute mea praeluxi, ut, si prius noti non fue-
runt, a me accipiant initium memoriae suae: tu tuis vita quam turpiter eg-
10 isti magnas of fudisti tenebras, ut, etiamsi fuerint egregii cives, per te
venerint in oblivionem. quare noli mihi antiquos viros obiectare. satius
est enim me meis rebus restis f lorere quam maiorum opinione niti et ita
1 quoniam] quo B 1 omnium] omnium quoniam QLH b: omnes VMp

1 maiores] mores N: maiorum H b 1 C. Sallustius] g. Sallustius B: crispus s. R:
crispus sallustius I 1 ad unum] ad unum om. QH b 2 et] ad E 2 num quid]
numquam V 2 his F.Schmidt] hos Mp: hi N HOR: hii MV: om. E: quos s.l. K2
3 Scipiones] scipione H 3 et] om.
3 Metellos ] Metellos vel Fabios
«Ven in mg.: metello I: metelli HbBasGrut: Paulos Ven 3 fuerit F.Schmidt] fuerint
: fuerunt V 3 aut opinionis] aut scipiones opinionis, scipiones del. E: aut huius
opinionis I: opiniones, edel., i s.l. N2 3 quam] quamquam B 4 res suae gestae]
gestae illustres V, del. illustres V: suae res gestae R: gestae ante fuerint, a. f. del. O:
suae om. Z: res gestae suae SB 4 vita] vitae s.l. a EV 4 commendavit] com-
mendaverunt V : commendarit Mp 5 hoc fuit] fuit hoc QH b 5 illis initium]
initium illis I 5 nominis et dignitatis] dignitatis et nominis H b: hominis O
5 nobis] a nobis Mp: vobis I: de nobis «JordanReynoldsSB 6 et res] res et Q: et
om. Hb 6 illustres] illustres sunt (sunt s.l.) VBasGrut 6 acta] et acta Z
7 illis ] illis viris AldLugdBasGrutRom 7 Sallusti, ortus] ortus salusti O
7 si] sa V 7 nonnullos iam tuae turpitudinis] nullos … non SB 7 nonnullos]
non nullus B: nonne illos H b 7 iam] om. QLH b: et iam O 7 tuae turpitudinis]
tuae turpitu O: tuae turpidinis N 8 meis maioribus] maioribus meis : meis om. E
8 mea] om. Z, s.l. V 8 praeluxi] proluxi 8 noti non] menti non B: non noti
L: tamen I 9 fuerunt] fuerint BQMV : fuerant H bZ 9 accipiant] incipiant
HbBO: incipiunt Q 9 vita] vitae NBI MpHEO: om. K1 9 quam] om. H1, s.l.
H2 10 offudisti] obfudisti B: ef fudisti REH bV: effudi Q: obfuidisti ex offendisti
K: of fendisti I 10 etiamsi fuerint] etsi fuerunt V 10 egregii] egregi B
10 per te van der Hoeven] certe : per te certe V 11 venerint in oblivionem] in
oblivionem venerint MR 1 1 noli mihi] mihi noli : mihi om. I 1 1 antiquos
viros] viros antiquos A: viros in mg. V 11 obiectare] obicere RZ 12 satius est
enim] satis est enim NQ: sanctius etenim est V : sacrus R: est om. O: etenim
12 me … quam] mihi meis nobilitatis quam B 12 me] om. Q 12 rebus gestis
florere] rebus f lorere gestis R 12 rebus gestis] gestis rebus 12 rebus f lo-
rere] gestis f lorere in mg. V 12 opinione] opinionem B: opinione maiorum
HM 12 niti et] niti r.p. M: niti ut R: nati et I1, corr. I2
4. To begin with, in view of the fact that Caius Sallust holds every
person’s ancestors to the same benchmark and yardstick, 10 I would re-
quest he respond: did those Scipios and Metelli 11 he conjures up for us,
have any particular renown or honourable standing previous to the ac-
tions they accomplished and the irreproachable conduct of their lives? 12
If these were the origins of their good name and dignity , why am I not
similarly esteemed, aye, illustrious in my deeds, having led a life un-
blemished? As though you were a descendent of theirs, Sallust! 13 Had
you been, a good many would now feel sore displeased at your disgrace.
5. With my merit I have outshone my ancestors, so that even if they
were not previously well known, their commemoration would commence
thanks to me. Whereas you, given the disgraceful life you have led, have
enveloped your ancestors in utter darkness;14 even if they were illustrious
citizens, because of you they have been conf ined to oblivion. 15 For this
reason do not extol men of yore to me. I prefer to f lourish through my
own deeds rather than rely on my ancestors’ reputation;
10 Cf. Cic. 2; 4; 7.
11 Cf. Cic. 1; 7.
12 Cf. Cic. Fam. 71 (III, 7), 5. See SB, 376–377.
13 Cf. Cic. 3; 6.
14 Cf. Rosc. Amer. 91; Dom. 137; Pis. 3; Luc. 61; Fin. 3, 45; Tusc. Disp. 5, 6; Nat.
1, 6.
15 Cf. Verr. 2, 79.
vivere, ut ego sim posteris meis nobilitatis initium et virtutis exemplum.

neque me cum iis conferri decet, patres conscripti, qui iam decesserunt
omnique odio carent et invidia, sed cum eis, qui mecum una in re publica
versati sunt. 6. sed [si] fuerim aut in honoribus petendis nimis ambitio-
5 sus – non hanc dico popularem ambitionem, cuius me principem conf i-
teor, sed illam perniciosam contra leges, cuius primos ordines Sallustius
duxit – aut in gerundis magistratibus aut in vindicandis malef iciis tam
severus aut in tuenda re publica tam vigilans, quam tu proscriptionem
vocas, credo, quod non omnes tui similes incolumes in urbe vixissent: at
10 quanto meliore loco res publica staret, si tu par ac similis scelestorum
civium una cum illis adnumeratus esses? 7.an ego tunc falso scripsi ‘ced-
ant arma togae’, qui togatus armatos et pace bellum oppressi? an illud
mentitus sum ‘fortunatam me consule Romam’,
1 ego ] om. 1 posteris] in posteris K 1 (in del. K2): poposteris N 1 meis]

nostris Mp 1 initium] initium ante exemplum iter., sed del. E 1 et virtutis]
initium et virtutis om. B 2 me] enim R 2 iis] his : hiis V 2 conferri decet]
conferre debet R: conferre decet NZ 2 conferri] conferri cum his I 2 patres
conscripti] om. I 2 decesserunt] discesserunt K: concesserunt R: omnino deces-
serunt I: decessere QLH b 3 omnique … invidia] om. O 3 odio] studio QLHb:
hodio V 3 eis] his IQLHb: iis BasGrutSB 3 una] unam Z 3 publica] om. E
4 si] del. CortiusJordanKurfessReynoldsSB 4 fuerim] fuerim ex fuerint K: fue-
rim ex fuerit V 4 aut] om. K: del. SB 4 petendis] petundis QHb 5 hanc] in
hanc (in del.) H 5 popularem] pluralem L 5 me principem] me principem
me Q 6 confiteor] fateor O 6 perniciosam] om. R 6 cuius primos ordines]
cuius me principem primos dies ordines, postea corr. Q: me primos N 7 duxit]
dixit s.l. u KMp: dixit NHMO: quis fuit add. SB 7 gerundis] gerendis Mp
7 aut] om. B1, s.l. B2: ut E: tam diligens add. SB 7 vindicandis] vidicandis B:
iudicandis ex vindicandis H b: vincandis M: iudicantis V : iudicandis Grut, in mg.
Bas 8 tuenda re p. N SEMp] tuendam r .p. H b: r .p. 8 quam] quod K
8 proscriptionem] perscriptionem AK 9 vocas] vocans n del. B 9 quod]
qui B 9 omnes] omnis B: om. H1, s.l. H2 9 incolumes in urbe] in hac urbe R:
incolumes in hac urbe AldLugdBasGrutRom: in colomes in urbe E: in urbem
QLHbPH 9 vixissent] venissent CD PMpH 10 at quanto] atque quanto NMPO:
atque H 1 (que eras. H2) 10 meliore] meliores Q 10 res publica] r. r. N: r . p.
tuenda Grut 10 staret] starent, n del. E 10 ac] aut N 10 similis] similes H1
10 scelestorum] celestronum K: sceleratorum BV (scelestorum in mg. V) 11 ad-
numeratus] annumeratus QMO 11 an] ac L 11 tunc] om. Hb: te Q: nunc O
12 togatus] togatos Q: tegatus H 1 12 armatos N ] om. MMp 12 et] et om.
BE: del. T 12 pace] in pace B: pace om. E 12 oppressi] obpressi O 12 illud]
aliud B: illut O 13 fortunatam Mp] fortunatam natam F 2 ERVAld in mg.,
I prefer to live in such a way as to become a fount of dignity and a para-

digm of virtue for those who come after me. It is not appropriate to com-
pare me with those who have already passed and have no part in contem-
porary hatreds and jealousies but, rather , Fathers of the Senate, with
those who are active alongside me now in this very polity.
6. And yet had I been excessively ambitious in my pursuit of hon-
ours – and I am not referring to the pursuit of popular approval, to which I
plead guilty as charged, but to that ruinous ambition that undermines the
laws, in which Sallust excelled – had I proved excessively severe in my
administrative functions or in the punishment of transgressions, or in-
deed so vigilant – as you would say proscriptively so16 – in my defence of
the state, not all those of your ilk would, so I deem it, remain in the city
unscathed. Yet would the condition of the polity not have been much im-
proved if you, who are similar to, in fact on a par with, criminal citizens,
had been numbered among them?
7. Did I write ‘Let arms give way to the toga’, 17 mistakenly, then,
when I, clothed in the toga, overwhelmed armed men and won the war
through peace? Did I lie when I stated: ‘Oh Rome, fortunate to have me
as a consul’,18
16 Cf. Cic. 5.
17 Cf. Cic. 6.
18 Cf. Cic. 5. Cf. Cic. Cat. 2, 4, 7.
qui tantum intestinum bellum ac domesticum urbis incendium exstinxi?

neque te tui piget, homo levissime, cum ea culpas, quae historiis mihi
gloriae ducis? an turpius est scribentem mentiri quam vel palam hoc or-
dine dicentem? nam quod in aetatem increpuisti, tantum me abesse puto
5 ab impudicitia, quantum tu a pudicitia.
8. Sed quid ego de te plura querar? quid enim mentiri turpe ducis, qui
mihi ausus sis eloquentiam ut vitium obicere, cuius semper nocens eguisti
patrocinio? an ullum existimas posse fieri civem egregium qui non his ar-
tibus et disciplinis sit eruditus? an ulla alia putas esse rudimenta et incu-
10 nabula virtutis, quibus animi ad gloriae cupiditatem aluntur? sed minime
mirum est, patres conscripti, si homo qui desidiae ac luxuriae plenus sit,
haec ut nova atque inusitata miratur . 9. nam quod ista inusitata rabie
petulanter in uxorem et in f iliam meam invasisti, quae facilius mulieres
1 tantum] tantam, n s.l. B 1 bellum] liberum K 1, s.l. bellum K 2 1 exstinxi]

extinxi KNBIREQLHbMpHPM: extincxi D: exstinsi V: extinxit O 2 neque ] ne
quid M: nec quid EHPR: numquid : nunquid IL: necque O: neque quidem V :
neque quid Mp 2 tui] an O: tui te BI 2 piget] pigeat M 2 homo] o homo, o
ras. I 2 culpas] culpas s.l. e V: culpes Mp 2 historiis] istoriis B: in historiis
NVI«ReynoldsSB: historiae s.l. is H b: mihi historiis E: mihi om. Hb 3 an] num B
3 est] om. R: est p. c. QLH bV (p. c. del. V) 3 quam] quia K 1 3 vel Norden-
Kurfess] illum XL: illam T: illic QH b: illinc S: illud ERMp: ullum N: del. He-
raeusReynoldsSB 3 palam] in add. SB 3 hoc] hac? M: om. K1 4 quod] qui
B: quodquod Q: quo E 4 in aetatem] in aetate KI: in etatem meam H b: in mea
aetate V 4 tantum] tantum s.l. dem V 4 me] me me H 4 abesse] esse, ab
s.l. Q 5 quantum] quam QR 5 tu] te BMp 5 a] ab EH b: om. SB 5 pu-
dicitia] inpudicitia H: tantum … pudicitia om. T: quantum tu a pudicitia in mg. V
6 de te plura] plura de te Hb 6 querar] loquar IQHbO: s.l. et loquar H2P2: loquar
querar Mp 6 mentiri turpe] te mentiri M 6 turpe] te 6 ducis AK 2 ]
dicis FK 1EOMp 7 ausus sis] sis ausus P: ausus es f io Q: sic ausus es H b
7 ut] in H 1, s.l. ut H 2 7 vitium] injicium O: vinum s.l. vicium E 2 7 nocens
eguisti] nocens eguisti om. E1 in mg. E2 8 patrocinio] patrimonio O: patrocinio
eguisti I 8 an ullum] ahilla B 8 ullum ERMPMp] nullum K 1: illum
N HO 8 existimas] existumas T 8 civem egregium] egregium civem IP
8 non his] non sit his O: hiis V 9 sit] om. O 9 an ulla] annulla QMp
9 rudimenta] erud … rell. 10 incunabula] cunabula BV 10 cupiditatem]
cupidinem R: cupiditatem gloriae H b 10 aluntur] alantur IV 10 minime] in-
pune H 11 est] s.l. T: om. Mp 11 si] om., s.l. Hb 11 homo] homo levissi-
mus A 11 qui] om. Hb 11 desidiae ac luxuriae] luxuriae aut desidiae A 12
haec] hoc V 12 atque] ac V 12 rabie petulanter] del. I 12 petulanter] om.
SB 12 quod] que B quam s.l. quem K 2 12 ista] ita I 12 inusitata] inusitata
ista Mp 12 rabie] rabies Mp: rabiae H 13 in] om. R 31 in] om.
RLHbMp 13 meam] om. 13 invasisti] om. : evasisti Mp
when I quenched such civil strife, such a f ire consuming the recesses of
our city?19
And are you not troubled, defective fellow that you are, in chastising
me for those very deeds for which you praise me in your own Histories?20
Do you then consider it more disgraceful to perjure yourself in writing
than in plain speaking before this body? Turning to your complaint about
my youth, it seems to me that lack of chastity has been quite as alien to
me,21 as chastity to you.
8. But why should I further complain about you? For what falsehood
do you consider below you, who dared criticise my eloquence, that very
eloquence whose protection you always found indispensable when you
were guilty? Or do you believe that any person, even one not trained in
these arts and disciplines, can become an illustrious citizen? Do you on
the contrary believe that there are other ways to sow the seed of virtue,
to be swaddled in it, ways that nourish the mindset that longs for glory?
But, Fathers of the Senate, it should be no surprise 22 that slothful in the
extreme and decadent, such a man is astonished, as if he were faced by
something novel and unusual.
9. Turning to the bizarre frenzy with which you audaciously harassed
my wife and daughter23 – who
19 Cf. Cic. Cat. 2, 13, 28; Sest. 51.

20 See Ernout 61, Koster 1980, 193, f. 641. Sallust’ s Histories covered the years
78–67 BC, and in all probability did not mention Cicero’ s consulship, but he
deals with this theme in hisCatiline, and hardly praised Cicero. Cf. Sall.Cat. 23,
6; 26, 2–4 where Cicero indeed gets some praise, but on the other hand see Sall.
Cat. 43, 1, where consul optumus is obviously meant satirically.
21 Cf. Cic. 2.
22 Cf. Cic. 2.
23 Cf. Cic. 2.
se a viris abstinuerunt quam tu vir [a viris], satis docte ac perite fecisti.

non enim me sperasti mutuam tibi gratiam relaturum, ut vicissim tuos
compellarem; unus enim satis es materiae habens: neque quicquam domi
tuae turpius est quam tu. multum vero te, opinor, fallit, qui mihi parare
5 putasti invidiam ex mea re familiari, quae mihi multo minor est quam ha-
bere dignus sum. atque utinam ne tanta quidem esset quanta est, ut potius
amici mei viverent quam ego testamentis eorum locupletior essem!
10. ego fugax, C. Sallusti? furori tribuni plebis cessi: utilius duxi
quamvis fortunam unus experiri, quam universo populo Romano civilis
10 essem dissensionis causa. qui postea quam ille suum annum in re publica
perbacchatus est omniaque quae commoverat pace et otio resederunt,
hoc ordine revocante atque ipsa re publica manu retrahente me reverti.
qui mihi dies, si cum omni reliqua vita conferatur, animo quidem meo
1 facilius mulieres se] se facilius mulieres a H b: se mulieres QLOV 1 abstinue-

runt quam tu vir] om. N: s.l., in mg. iter ., postea del. H2 1 abstinuerunt] non
abstinuerunt Mp 1 a viris del. Holford-StrevensReynoldsSB: iuraris s.l. vir a viris
K2 2 non] nam N 2 me sperasti] sperasti me K 2IER 2 me] om. K1QHb
2 mutuam] om. QH b: metuam P 2 tibi] om. RMp 3 compellarem] compel-
larer O: compellerem s.l. a H2 3 satis es] satis est B: es satis AQLHb: es om., s.l.
H2: unus es enim satis es E 3 materiae habens] habens materiae QH b
3 habens] del. SB 3 neque] nec H b 3 domi] domui AEMR VMp 4 est]
om. O 4 vero te] enim te M: te vero N 4 vero] om. 4 te opinor] te ut opi-
nor A: ut opinor te I: te opinio Hb« 4 fallit] falsit D: falli V 4 qui] quae : quod
K2M: om. P 4 parare … mihi] om. OH b 4 parare putasti] putasti parare V
4 parare] parere s.l. a H 2 4 putasi invidiam] invidiam putasi E 4 re fam-
iliari] familiari re E 5 mihi multo] multo mihi KN: post multo s.l. mihi sim V :
mihi om. E 6 sum] sim LI 7 viverent] viverunt, u del., s.l. e D: om. R 7
ego] mihi FK1, del. K2: om. A 7 eorum] illorum N 7 locupletior] locrupletior
M 8 fugax] quidem A: om. I 8 C. Sallusti] g. salustii EK 1 s.l. crispe K 2: c.s.
Hb: crispe s. Mp: crispe salusti O 8 furori] furore O 8 cessi] cesi O: om. M1,
s.l. M2 8 duxi] om. RI1, in mg. I2: dixi Mp 9 quamvis] quamquis HP 9 for-
tunam unus] unus fortunam Mp: unus ex uno K: ex unam H 9 universo populo
Romano] universae p.r. E: re universo p.r., re del. I 9 civilis] civiles B 10 dis-
sensionis] dissenssionis B: dissentionis M 10 causa] causamus, mus del. K2
10 ille] illa B 10 suum annum] annum om. N: animum suum R: suum amicum
Q: suo aio H b 10 in] om. B 10 re publica] in r .b. O: p. s.l. H2: om. Hb
11 perbacchatus] perbachatus BIQHM: debachatus N 1 1 omniaque quae
K2SHbRV] omnia quaeque NF : omniamquamque K 1: omnia quaque I: omnia
quae A 11 otio] odio IHOPMp: odio et pace I 11 resederunt] residerint B
12 atque] adque V 12 ipsa r.p. C? EP] ipsa p.r. DKHMR: ipsa p. et F: ipso p.r.
A: ipsam r .p. V : ipsa populi romani NIMp 12 retrahente me] me retrahente
RQLHb: me om. O 12 reverti] revera O 13 reliqua vita] vita reliqua N
13 conferatur] conferantur O 13 meo] om. K1
found it easier , though women, to keep themselves from men than you
did,24 despite the fact that you are a man – your attack was dexterous
enough and craftily planned; for you did not expect me to return the fa-
vour by insulting your family in turn, since you alone provide suf ficient
material, and nothing in your home is more disgusting than you yourself.
But you were greatly mistaken, it seems to me, when you thought that
you could breed envy against me over the question of my property ,25 of
which I possess considerably less than I am worth. In any case, even if it
were less than it in fact is, I would prefer that my friends were alive rather
than becoming wealthier myself through their wills!26
10. Am I renegade then, Caius Sallust?27 It was I who yielded before
the fury of the tribune of the commons. 28 I thought it more useful to ex-
perience whatever fortune came my way rather than to be a cause of civil
disagreement for the whole of the Roman people. And after he had
wasted away his year in of fice in debauchery,29 and after all that he had
messed up had settled down again into peace and tranquillity, I returned,
summoned by this very body; and the state herself led me by the hand.
Were I to compare that day, when all of you and the Roman
24 Cf. Gaius’s defence of his mother Cornelia

$’ $ µ«

σ ν ξ µ Ν in Plut. CG 25, 6. Cf. also Sall. 15. Here Sallust cannot
refrain from men while further in the 15th chapter all husbands are angry at Sal-
lust’s inducing their wives to adultery . There are a number of examples when
men are depicted parallelly engaged in both dominant and subservient sexual
roles (see Corbeill 1996, 150, and 128 ff. for more on the oratorical accusations
pertaining to moral conduct).
25 Cf. Cic. 2, 3–4.
26 Cf. Cic. Phil. 2, 40. See Koster 1980, 194.
27 Cf. Cic. 7.
28 Clodius is meant. See above ch. 1, p. 17 f.
29 Cf. Cic. Phil. 2, 104.
superet, cum universi vos populusque Romanus frequens adventu meo

gratulatus est: tanti me, fugacem, mercennarium patronum, hi aestimave-
runt! 11. neque hercules mirum est, si ego semper iustas omnium amici-
tias aestimavi; non enim uni privatim ancillatus sum neque me addixi,
5 sed quantum quisque rei publicae studuit, tantum mihi fuit aut amicus aut
adversarius. ego nihil plus volui valere quam pacem: multi privatorum
audacias nutriverunt. ego nihil timui nisi leges: multi arma sua timeri
voluerunt. ego numquam volui quicquam posse nisi pro vobis: multi ex
vobis potentia freti in vos suis viribus abusi sunt. itaque non est mirum, si
10 nullius amicitia usus sum qui non perpetuo rei publicae amicus fuit.
12. neque me paenitet, si aut petenti V atinio reo patrocinium pollicitus
sum aut Sesti insolentiam repressi aut Bibuli patientiam culpavi aut vir-
tutibus Caesaris favi. hae enim laudes egregii civis et unicae sunt; quae si
tu mihi ut vitia obicis, temeritas tua reprehendetur, non mea vitia culpa-
1 superet … meo] om., in mg. I2 1 universi] universe (e eras.) T 1 vos] vos

om. N 2 gratulatus] congratulatus R 3 est … aestimaverunt] om., post aesti-
mavi transp. B: existimaverunt QH bMp: estimarent N: extimaverunt V 2 tanti]
tanta Mp 2 fugacem] fagacem B 2 mercennarium] mercenarium KMp
2 hi] hii V 3 neque … aestimavi] om. T, in mg. add. K2 3 hercules K 2E]
hercule BX PMpV: ercule M: hercle HR: hercul N 4 si ego] si ego si ego, postea
corr. H 4 iustas] iusta B: iustas omnium semper E: iustas semper V 4 aesti-
mavi] existimavi QH b: extimavi V 4 enim] s.l. H2 4 uni] vi A: in I 1, ras., in
mg. I2 4 privatim] privatum O 4 neque] ne, que s.l. Mp 4 me] om. QH b
4 addixi] abduxi A: adduxi B 5 quantum] quaquantum T: quantum quantum O:
quantumc Mp 5 quisque] om. R 5 studuit] aut inimicus fuit add. SB
5 aut] om. K1: om. O 6 adversarius] inimicus : om. O 6 ego] ego … leges
post inimicus R 6 plus volui] volui plus Hb: valui, o s.l. Mp 6 quam] quam ex
quia K 2 7 nutriverunt] nutrivererunt O: timuerunt I 8 ego … voluerunt] om.
QHb 8 numquam volui] nunquam volui P: numqui volui O: volui numquam
Mp 8 volui quicquam] quicquam volui M: volui ante quicquam om., post vobis
suppl. N 9 freti] in ras. I 9 in ERMMpV] om. rell.: in vos om. Hb: nos QL
9 vos] vobis N 9 suis viribus] viribus suis H b 9 abusi] in ras. H 9 non]
nichil V 10 amicitia] amiticia B: amicitie V 10 perpetuo] perpetua B
10 rei publicae] romano populo O 11 neque] ne, que s.l. Mp 11 petenti] pe-
tendi O: paenitenti Mp 11 vatinio NH b«] vatino : vectivo V 11 pollicitus]
sollicitus Q 12 Sesti] festi AV: sexti E: sestii NBIHb: resti R 12 insolentiam]
insolempniam N 12 repressi] repressi sunt Q 13 Caesaris] om. R 13 hae]
haec Mp: c eras. KH bE: ne NO 13 egregii] egregiae F 1KMp 13 civis] civis
sunt E 13 et] om. O 13 unicae] ae del., i corr. I: unici H b 14 si tu mihi ut
vitia obicis] si tunc vitia mihi obicis H b 14 tua] om. K1 14 reprehendetur «]
… atur : reprehendantur B: reprehenditur QH bMp 14 vitia] om. M: vicia vicia
postea corr. H
people came out in crowds and congratulated me on my return, with all

the other days of my life, it would, when I consider it, be the best. So
highly did they value me, the renegade, the patron for a fee!30
11. And by Heaven it is nothing to wonder at if I always valued the
impartial friendship of all. 31 For I was not at the beck and call 32 of any
private person, was never a lackey , but determined who was my friend
and who my enemy according to the level of his devotion to the state.
There is nothing I appreciated more than the value of peace, 33 whereas
many others supported the imprudence of individuals. 34 I was not afraid
of anything apart from the laws, 35 whereas many others wished to be
feared for their strength in arms. I never wanted to be powerful, except
for your benef it, whereas many others, relying on the power they had
from you, have misused their strength against you. And so it should not
be surprising that I did not draw on the friendship of anyone who was not
constant in his support of the state.36
12. I do not regret it, if, when Vatinius was accused and requested my
protection, I promised it to him; nor if I restrained Sestius’ insolence; nor
if I blamed Bibulus for his submissiveness; nor if I expressed admiration
for Caesar ’s virtues. 37 These were praises for an illustrious citizen, and
they were made but once.38 Should you lay them against me as a fault, it
is your irresponsibility that will be rebuked, and not my fault that will be
30 Cf. Cic. 7; 5. See Opelt 1965, 148.

31 See ch. 2, p. 36.
32 Cf. Cic. 7.
33 Cf. Ernout 63.
34 One of the typical examples of working in ciceronian style. The author perhaps
tries to imitate well-known ciceronian f igures, of anaphora and parallelism
(ego … multi …; ego … multi …; ego … multi …). Cf. Kirby, 1997; 19ff.; Kaster
1998, 248 ff.
35 Cf. Cic. Dom. 71.
36 Cf. Cic. 7.
37 Cf. Cic. 7; see p. 160–161 above. See also Ernout 64.
38 Cf. Cic. Prov. Cons. passim, esp. 47. See also ch. 1, p. 17 f.
buntur. plura dicerem, si apud alios mihi esset disserendum, patres con-
scripti, non apud vos, quos ego habui omnium mearum actionum moni-
tores. sed ubi rerum testimonia adsunt, quid opus est verbis?
13. Nunc ut ad te revertar , Sallusti, patrem tuum praeteream, qui si
5 numquam in vita sua peccavit, tamen maiorem iniuriam rei publicae fa-
cere non potuit quam quod te talem iflium genuit; neque tu si qua in pueri-
tia peccasti, exsequar, ne parentem tuum videar accusare, qui eo tempore
summam tui potestatem habuit, sed qualem adolescentiam egeris; hac
enim demonstrata facile intellegetur quam petulanti pueritia tam impudi-
10 cus et procax adoleveris. postea quam immensae gulae impudicissimi
corporis quaestus sufficere non potuit et aetas tua iam ad ea patienda quae
alteri facere collibuisset exoleverat, cupiditatibus infinitis efferebaris, ut
1 culpabuntur] culpantur RO: culpabantur H 1 apud] aput P 1 esset] eseset

O: esset mihi RIDLQV 1 disserendum M] discern … rell. 2 patres con-
scripti] om. Hb 2 apud] aput P 2 ego] om. E 2 habui] habuit O: semper
habui V 2 mearum actionum] actionum mearum E: actionum om. M 3 moni-
tores] munitores B: memores V 3 testimonia] testimonium B 3 adsunt]
assunt EQH b 3 quid] quod PB 3 opus] in mg. V 3 verbis] vobis K 1HP
4 Nunc] non Q 4 ut ad te] ad te ut FK: ad te ANH bMp 4 Sallusti] crispe
s. Mp 4 patrem ] patremque rell.: et ad patrem H b 4 praeteream] praeterea
RQ: om. Hb 4 qui si] quasi Q 5 numquam] num Q: nusquam H 5 sua] sua
s.l. V: in sua vita I 5 maiorem iniuriam] iniuriam maiorem QHb 5 rei publicae]
p.r. Q: romano populo Mp 6 non] no B 6 potuit] opotuit O 6 quod te] te
quod te E 6 talem filium] filium talem Hb 6 tu] om. QHb 6 qua] quid R: in
add. O 7 pueritia] pueriticia P 7 peccasti] om. O 7 exsequar] exequar
KNIREQLHbHPMMp 7 ne] nec K1O: nix P 7 parentem] parentum T 7 ac-
cusare] culpare LQH b 7 qui I M2] si rell. 7 eo] ergo R 7 tempore] tui N
8 summam] summo R: summama E 8 tui potestatem] tuae potestatis Mp
8 tui] cui N 8 habuit] habebat QLH b 8 sed qualem] sed sed qualem N
8 adolescentiam] adholescentiam Q: habebat sed si quali adolescentia fueris si
demonstravero H b 9 enim] om. : egeris … enim om. QL 9 demonstrata]
demonstratam Q: monstrata V 9 intellegetur TS] … itur rell.: intelligetur NLIV:
intelligitur REQH bMpM 9 quam] qua K 10 impudicus] in.m ante impudicus
del. K2: inpudicus H 10 quam] om. K1 10 immensae] inmerissae R: inmensae
H 1 1 quaestus EMH1Mp] quaestus sumptus R : quaestuosus sumptus H b:
quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaestiosius sumptus Q: quaestus idem sumptus OH 2
P:
quaestus stipendia sumptus I: ad sumptusadd. sed postea del. V 11 sufficere] om.
H1: s.l. H2: facere PO: ef ficere I 11 iam ad ea] ad ea iam A 11 iam] non E:
om. O 11 patienda] patientia N1: facienda BO 12 facere] om. Mp 12 colli-
buisset] collibuerat isset Q 12 cupiditatibus] om. E 12 infinitis] infiniti E
12 efferebaris] efferebatis s.l. r K2: efferaberis BR: efferebans T
blamed.39 I would speak on, if I had to explain these things to others,

rather than to you, Fathers of the Senate, who were my counsellors in all
my acts. But when the facts are witnesses, what need is there for words? 40
13. And now to you, Sallust. I shall say nothing of your father; even if
he did no wrong in his life, he could not have done greater damage to the
state that to bring forth such a son. Nor shall I inquire after your child-
hood transgressions, in order not to appear to censure your father , who
had full power over you at that time. But what a youth you did in fact
lead! By revealing your disreputable early years it becomes easy indeed
to understand how you grew up into one so debauch and insolent. Once
the operations 41 of your extraordinarily debauch body could no longer
satisfy your immense appetite, once your age had already become too
mature to submit to someone else’s desires, you were carried away with
incessant cravings42 wishing to try
39 Cf. Cic. Dom. 88.

40 Cf. Cic. Phil. 2, 11.
41 There is a common use ofquaestus for prostituting, cf. Plaut.Poen. 5, 3, 21; Liv.
26, 33, 8; Tac. Anm. 2, 85; Val. Max. 6, 1, 6; 10; Ter. Heaut. 4, 1, 27; And. 1, 1,
52; Ad. 2, 1, 52; Plaut. Capt. 1, 1, 30.
42 Cf. Cic. Verr. 2, 2, 184.
quae ipse corpori tuo turpia non duxisses in aliis experireris. 14. ita non
est facile exputare, patres conscripti, utrum inhonestioribus corporis par-
tibus rem quaesierit an amiserit. domum paternam vivo patre turpissime
venalem habuit [vendidit]; et cuiquam dubium potest esse, quin mori
5 coegerit eum, quo hic nondum mortuo pro herede gesserit omnia? neque
pudet eum a me quaerere quis in P. Crassi domo habitet cum ipse respon-
dere non queat quis in ipsius habitet paterna domo. ‘at hercules lapsus ae-
tatis tirocinio postea se correxit!’ non ita est, sed abiit in sodalicium sac-
rilegi Nigidiani; bis iudicis ad subsellia attractus extrema fortuna stetit et
10 ita discessit, ut non hic innocens esse sed iudices peierasse existimaren-
tur. 15. primum honorem in quaestura adeptus hunc locum et hunc ordi-
nem despectui !habuit", cuius aditus sibi quoque sordidissimo homini
1 ipse corpori tuo turpia] turpia ipse corpori tuo M 1 duxisses] dixisses O: non
duxisses in ras. I 1 in aliis] om. I 1 experireris] expirireris B: experiebaris E:
experieris RO 2 ita non est facile] ita difficile est A: non facile est R 2 expu-
tare] expectare AE: K (ex exputare): et putare B: disputare Hb: putare R 2 inhon-
estioribus] in inhonestioribus (in s.l.) K 2 corporis] corporis om. N 3 partibus]
artibus P 3 quaesierit] quesiverit E: quaesierint, n del. D: adquisierit I 3 an
amiserit] an miserit QHb 3 domum] domam T: domum tuam E, tuam del., pater-
nam s.l. E 3 turpissime] om. 4 vendidit om. «Hb: del. JordanEussnerKur-
fessReynoldsSB 4 cuiquam] cui nam R 4 dubium potest esse] potest dubium
esse E 4 quin] qui non Q 5 herede] heredem Q 5 neque … paterna domo]
om. A 5 neque] ne? non? Mp 6 a me] om. K1 6 quaerere] quaererem V
6 quis] quasi HO 6 in] in ras. H 6 P. Crassi domo habitet] p. c. crassi habitet
domo H b 6 P.] publii Mp: m. L 7 non queat] nequeat P: non querat V 7
quis in] quis in, in in ras. H: in om. B: om. P 7 ipsius] illius Mp 7 habitet]
habitet s.l. V: habtet B 7 at] ab Mp 7 hercules E] hercule F 2 V: hercle
Mp: mehercules K 2: herculis pedes R 8 aetatis] eatis T 8 tirocinio] tyrocinio
KBEMPRQ: arocinio O 8 postea se correxit] postea correxit se I: se correxit
postea V 8 postea se] se postea Hb 8 abiit] habuit K1O: habiit TV 8 sodalic-
ium sacrilegi] sacrilegi sodalicium N 8 sodalicium] solilitium R 9 sacrilegi
Nigidiani] sacrilegii nigidiani Q: sacrilegium nigidianum H b 9 nigidiani bis]
nigidianibus B 9 bis iudicis] bis del., s.l. post iudicis M2: ad bis ad iudicis H b: is
iussu R: bis ad iudicis QL: bis ad subsellia iudicis I: bis ad subsellia iudiciis N 9
subsellia] subsella B 9 attractus] actractus T: adtractus KR: atractus B 9 ex-
trema] externa O: in extrema I 9 stetit] stetit ex stant K 10 discessit] stetit Hb:
dissecit O: discescit P 10 non hic] hic non A, corr. A 10 innocens] innoceres
O 10 esse] esset BQ 10 peierasse] pierasse A: peiurasse K: pererrasse B
11 existimarentur] … retur n s.l. E: extimarentur V 1 1 adeptus] post adeptus
add. secutus est (est om. T) V: adeptus sequitus est Mp 12 ordinem] honorem I
12 despectui habuit Norden] despectus : despectum fecit I: desserptus V: despec-
tum Bas: despectum reddidit AldLugdGrutRom 12 cuius] om., s.l. M 12 adi-
tus] additus T: om. R 12 sibi quoque] sibi quaeque I: quoque sibi VR: quoque
om. O 12 sordidissimo homini] homini sordidissimo N: sordissimo B
on others all those things you did not consider disgusting for your own
body.43
14. It is not easy to determine then, Fathers of the Senate, which parts
of his body were the more shameful, those for which he was remunerated
or those for which he remunerated others.44 He offered his father’s house
for sale 45 [sold] 46 while his father was still alive. And can there be any
doubt that he caused the death of that person, when he behaved in every
way as an inheritor while his father was still alive?47 Yet he does not feel
humiliated when he poses me the question, who is living in Publius Cras-
sus’ house,48 while he himself cannot answer the question, who is living
in his very father ’s house. “But, by Heaven, having fallen due to his
youth and inexperience he later set himself to rights”.49 No, this is not the
case. He fell in with the company of the sacrilege of Nigidius. 50 Twice
hauled before a judge, he was all but condemned, yet slipped out in such
a way that he was not considered innocent, but rather the judges were
thought to have committed perjury.
15. When he obtained his f irst office, the quaestorship, he held this
institution and this body in disdain,51 despite he himself
43 Cf. Cic. 5. For impudicus and impudicissimi see Opelt 1965, 156; Adams 1982,
55, 132.
44 Cf. Cic. Pis. 22; Har. Resp. 42, 59. See Koster 1980, 196. On the char ge of
homosexual prostitution as a commonplace of invective see Arena 2007, 157f.;
Craig 2004, 202.
45 Cf. Cic. Verr. 3, 144; Cic. 1.
46 See apparatus criticus p. 157. Cf. Ullman 1955, 370.
47 Another attempt to imitate Cicero. A char ge of parricide was used by Cicero,
probably as a literary convention, rather than for historical truth. See Nisbet
1961, 193; Opelt 1965, 200 f.; Arena 2007, 158.
48 Cf. Cic. 2.
49 See Koster 1980, 196.
50 Publius Nigidius Figulus (praetor 58 BC), scholar, astrologer and mystic, was
interested in the occult. Cf. Cic. Vat. 14; Tim. 1, 1; Fam. 4, 13, 3; Plin. H. N. 9,
185; 29, 69, 138; Suet. Aug. 94, 5; Hieron. Euseb. Chron. 152 (ed. Scal.). See
also Kurfess 1913b, 23–25; Ernout 65; SB 384.
51 See ch. 3, p. 133.
patuisset. itaque timens, ne facinora eius clam vos essent, cum omnibus
matrum familiarum viris opprobrio esset, confessus est vobis audientibus
adulterium neque erubuit ora vestra. vixeris, ut libet, Sallusti, egeris,
quae volueris: satis sit unum te tuorum scelerum esse conscium. noli
5 nobis languorem et soporem nimium exprobrare: sumus diligentes in
tuenda pudicitia uxorum nostrarum, sed ita experrecti non sumus, ut a te
cavere possimus; audacia tua vincit studia nostra. 16. ecquod hunc mo-
vere possit, patres conscripti, factum aut dictum turpe, quem non pudue-
rit palam vobis audientibus adulterium confiteri? quod si tibi per me nihil
10 respondere voluissem, sed illud censorium eloquium Appii Claudii et L.
Pisonis, integerrimorum virorum, quo usus est quisque eorum, pro lege
palam universis recitarem, nonne tibi viderer aeternas inurere maculas,
quas reliqua vita tua eluere non posset? neque post illum dilectum sena-
tus umquam te vidimus,
1 vos] s.l. bis K 2: vobis Mp 1 omnibus] hominibus B 2 matrum] matribus

HbVBasGrut: om. Q 2 viris VK 2] vestris : uris R: nostris Mp: om. QBasGrut:
vestris, corr. vobis I 2 2 opprobrio] obprobrio KBILH bP: obprobrio vestris sus-
pectus I 3 esset … neque] om. O 3 ora vestra] vestra ora I: hora vestra V 3
ut libet] ut lubet et B 3 Sallusti] c. salusti I 4 egeris, quae volueris] om. N
4 quae] ut O 4 sit] est I 4 esse conscium] conscium esse E 4 noli] noli
esse B 5 nobis] vobis N 5 soporem] saporem HM 5 nimium] nimirum
Hb 5 exprobrare] exprobare KBDV 5 diligentes] dilentis Q 6 uxorum nos-
trarum E] nostrarum uxorum VMp: uxorem nostram K 1 6 experrecti] per-
recti, ex s.l. H2: experti IV 6 a] om. B 7 tua vincit studia] in mg. V ec-7
quod GlareanLugdGrut] et quod AFN , Ald in mg. : et pro K 1, et quid VK 2: qui
post et quod B 7 hunc movere possit, patres conscripti] hunc possit p. c. movere
E 7 hunc] hinc H 8 movere] vovere B 8 patres conscripti] om. I 8 fac-
tum aut dictum turpe] ante hunc I 8 aut dictum K2I] auditum NFK1T1: et dic-
tum L: auditu A T2XB 8 non] om. AMp 9 puduerit] puderit, u s.l. N 9
palam] om. E 9 adulterium confiteri] confiteri adulterium Mp 9 per] pro K
9 nihil] non I1: nihil per me QHb 10 voluissem] valuissem Mp 10 illud] illut
O 10 Appii] Apii B 10 et] om. I 10 L.] lucii EPHMMp 11 integerrimo-
rum] integerrumorum Q 11 virorum] vivorum T 11 est quisque] et quisque
E: est quisque est Q: quisque est NHb 12 recitarem] recitate O 12 nonne] non
QHb 12 tibi] om. Mp 12 viderer aeternas] viderem internas Mp 13 reli-
qua] reliquas O 13 tua] om. Hb: tua inu, inu del. Mp 13 eluere] elucere E:
eludere HPO 13 posset ] possit K 2: possis H bV1: possim V 2 13 dilectum
XB] de … rell.: deletum I1 14 umquam N] usquam : usque Q: numquam E:
unquam IPMp: om. 14 te vidimus] vidimus te AI
gaining access to it, debauch man. In fact, fearing that his crimes would
remain secret from you, he confessed before you to his adultery , un-
abashed, in open hearing, even though he was a source of scandal to all
the husbands of respectable women.52
You have lived as you liked, Sallust, and you have acted as you
wished. It is enough that you alone are conscious of your crimes. Do not
reproach us with indolence and excessive sloth. W e are attentive in de-
fending the chastity of our wives but not so vigilant to be able to guard
against you. Your audacity outfoxes our diligence.
16. And what disgraceful word or deed can impinge on him, who,
Fathers of the Senate, was not ashamed to confess openly before you to
adultery? Suppose I were to select not to respond to you in my own words
but rather recite to you publicly , in the name of the law ,53 the censorial
speeches delivered by Appius Claudius and Lucius Piso, 54 upright men
both, even then would you not be of the opinion that I had branded you
with everlasting stains, which you could not wash away till the end of
your days? 55 And then after that selection of the Senate we saw you no
more,
52 See Funaioli 1920, 1916 f. Cf. Gell. N. A. 17, 18; Porph. Hor. Serm. 1, 2, 41;
Serv. Aen. 6, 612. See Ernout 66, 83; SB 384–385. Cf. Sall. 9 and Corbeill 1996,
150 on the absence of logic on the part of the accuser.
53 Shackleton Bailey refers pro lege to Appius Claudius, and not to ‘Cicero’, i.e.
for eloquium … quo usus est quisque eorum pr o lege , he translated: “a pro-
nouncement which each one of them has treated as a law”. Cf. SB 385–387.
54 Appius Claudius Caecus, consul in 307 and 296BC, and Lucius Calpurnius Piso
Frugi, consul in 133 BC, had both served as censors. Appius Claudius Caecus as
censor in 312 before holding other offices was renowned for the strictness of his
conduct. Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi, censor in 120 BC, earned his agnomen,
which became hereditary, though his probity. So thought Ernout and Reynolds.
Shackleton Bailey, however, argued that here Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoni-
nus is meant, consul in 58 BC. He argued also, that here Appius Claudius and
Lucius Piso Caesoninus are meant, who as censors expelled Sallust from the
Senate in 51 BC. Cf. SB 385.
55 Cf. Cic. Verr. 5, 121.
nisi forte in ea te castra coniecisti quo omnis sentina rei publicae con-
fluxerat. 17. at idem Sallustius, qui in pace ne senator quidem manserat,
postea quam res publica armis oppressa est, [et] idem a victore qui ex-
sules reduxit in senatum per quaesturam est reductus. quem honorem ita
5 gessit ut nihil in eo non venale habuerit cuius aliquis emptor fuerit, ita
egit ut nihil non aequum ac verum duxerit, quod ipsi facere collibuisset,
neque aliter vexavit ac debuit, si quis praedae loco magistratum accepis-
set. 18. peracta quaestura postea quam magna pignora eis dederat, cum
quibus similitudine vitae se coniunxerat, unus iam ex illo grege videba-
10 tur. eius enim partis erat Sallustius, quo tamquam in unam voraginem
coetus omnium vitiorum excesserat: quicquid inpudicorum, chilonum,
parricidarum, sacrilegorum, debitorum fuit in urbe, municipiis, coloniis,
Italia tota, sicut in fretis subsederant, homines perditi ac notissimi, nulla
in parte castris apti
1 ea te] acte K 1: mea te A: ea s.l. te om. V 1 castra] acta ante castra del. K
1 quo] qua Q: quos I 1 sentina] sententia K 1 1 rei publicae] romani populi
M 2 confluxerat] confluxerat ex coniecat H b 2 at] ad B: ut V 2 idem] ille
QHb 2 ne senator quidem] quidem ne senator Mp 2 ne] ne om. Hb s.l. Hb:
non V 2 manserat] remanserat I 3 confluxerat … res publica] om. A res3
publica] quam in r.p. Q 3 armis] armas B 3 idem] eidem V: [et] del. Jordan-
KurfessReynoldsSB 3 a victore Jordan] qui victores I: victores NT1 Mp: vic-
tor KE: victore T 2: auctore X: auctorem B: huic AFV 3 qui] quos N 4 ex-
sules] exules ELM 4 per Mommsen] post 4 est reductus] reductus est post
quaesturam M: receptus est Hb 5 nihil in eo non BX] nihil non in eo NFK: non in
eo nihil AV: nihil non in eo non T 5 aliquis] aliqui KT 5 fuerit] fuit V: et add.
Kurfess 6 nihil] om. E 6 ac] ad A1FK1: ad s.l. c K2: ad s.l. ac V: aut N 6 ipsi]
illi H bE 6 facere] om. O 7 neque] enim add. K 7 aliter] taliter B 7 ve-
xavit E] vixit A 2 upshape: vetuit XB: vetavit T 7 ac] quam I 7 praedae
loco] loco praedae V 7 magistratum] om. I 8 quaestura] quaestio O 8 quam]
cum O 8 pignora] pignera 8 dederat] dedisset QH b 9 similitudine vitae
se] vitae similitudine se B: se similitudine NI, vitae om. I: suae Q 9 coniunxerat]
convinxerat K: s.l. n H 9 illo grege] illorum grege B: illo gregi M 10 partis]
partis iam V 10 erat ] erat exemplar : exemplar erat V 10 quo A 2] quod
T: qui K2: qua XB 10 tamquam X] tantam rell.: tanquam HbB 11 vitiorum]
vitiosorum B: viciciorum Mp 1 1 excesserat] excesserit B: conf luxerat H b
11 quicquid] quidquid D 1 1 inpudicorum] impudicorum IH bP 1 1 chilonum
Maurenbrecher] cilonum ISM: cylonum AF LEHPO: cylonium K: ciclonum
QHb: cillonum MpV: cynonum N 12 parricidarum] parricidalium H b: patricida-
rum V 12 debitorum QLHb«] dedit … : ledit … : dediciciorum K 12 fuit in
urbe] in urbe fuit I 12 in] om. TDMp 12 municipiis, coloniis, Italia tota] in
m., in c., in I. t. B 12 municipiis] munipiis T 12 coloniis] colomiis O 13
Italia tota] Italiam totam K 13 in fretis] infreti : infrae s.l. fretis E: inserti 13
subsederant] om. A: subsederat M: n s.l. E 13 homines perditi] perditi nominis
I 13 homines Ald2] nominis : nominis in mg. V 14 apti] apta AV1, corr. V 2
except perhaps in those military camps where all the dregs of the state
flowed.56
17. But this same Sallust, who could not even stay senator in time of
peace, was thereafter, the state overcome by military force, recalled by
the victor – when he summoned back the exiles – to the rank of quaestor
and thus to the senate.57 He so administered this office that there was no-
thing for which a buyer could be found, that he did not in fact put up for
sale.58 He behaved as if he considered correct and just all that he himself
yearned for, creating turmoil and accruing debts as if he were a man who
had received his office as plunder.
18. Having completed his quaestorship and having made grandiose
promises59 to those with whom he was attached by the similarity of their
way of living, he now gave the impression of being one of that faction.
Sallust, you see, belonged to that grouping where all the imperfections
gushed, like a deluge into drainage. The debauch, the hangers-on, 60 the
murderers, the sacrilegious, the debtors, 61 whether from the city , or the
municipalities, from the colonies, or from all of Italy , these were swal-
lowed up there as if into the sea, all of them degenerate and infamous, 62
people in no way fit for the
56 Here Sallust’s immorality is alleged, but the real grounds of his expulsion from
the Senate were in all probability his actions in 52BC, when as a tribune he acted
against Cicero and Titus Annius Milo (cf. Asc. Mil. 37, 45, 49, 51). See Koster
1980, 197. See also the historical context in ch. 1, p. 17 f. Cf. Cic. Cat. 2, 4, 7.
Shackleton Bailey ar gued that forte here is awkward from the author ’s side,
since it is a well-known fact, that Sallust fought on Caesar ’s side in the Civil
War. Cf. SB 386.
57 See ch. 1, p. 17 ff. This might refer to Sallust’ s second quaestorship in 49 BC.
See also Ernout 67; SB 387.
58 Cf. Sall. Iug. 35, 10. Cf. Ullman 1955; 370.
59 Cf. Cic. Phil. 1, 4.
60 See Ernout 83.
61 See Ernout 83–84. Cf. Sall. Cat. 14, 2–3.
62 See ch. 3, p. 137.
nisi licentia vitiorum et cupiditate rerum novarum. 19. ‘at postea quam
praetor est factus, modeste se gessit et abstinenter’. nonne ita provinciam
vastavit, ut nihil neque passi sint neque exspectaverint gravius in bello
socii nostri, quam experti sunt in pace hoc Africam interiorem obtinente?
5 unde tantum hic exhausit, quantum potuit aut fide nominum traici aut in
naves contrudi: tantum, 1inquam, exhausit, patres conscripti, quantum
voluit. ne causam diceret, sestertio duodeciens cum Caesare paciscitur.
quod si quippiam eorum falsum est, his palam refelle unde, qui modo ne
paternam quidem domum reluere potueris, repente tamquam somnio bea-
10 tus hortos pretiosissi-mos, villam T iburtem C. Caesaris, reliquas pos-
sessiones paraveris. 20. neque piguit quaerere, cur ego P. Crassi domum
emissem, cum tu eius
1 nisi] nisi in H b 1 rerum novarum] novarum rerum NHM 1 at] ast Mp

1 postea quam] postquam E 2 praetor] rector E: praetorem O 2 est factus]
factus est QHbM 2 modeste … vastavit] om. O 2 et] et ex ut K 2 nonne «]
non : quid Q: quin H b: non enim P: del. K2 2 provinciam] pronuntiam B
3 vastavit] devastavit de… del. V 3 ut nihil] del. V 3 neque passi sint] om.
V: sunt O 3 neque] om. Mp 3 exspectaverint TI] … arint : … arent
P: … averunt XB 4 nostri] vestri Q 4 hoc Africam] hoc affricam KIEHMpHb:
hoc in affricam O 4 interiorem] inferiorem Jordan 4 obtinente] oriente K: ob-
continente HM: continente P: tentante V : optinente NI 5 unde] utinam Q
5 hic] om. Mp: hic tantum I 5 exhausit] exhausit p. c. L: exhaussit B: exausit V
5 quantum … exhausit] in mg. V 5 fide] a ante fide s.l. K: f idi I: a f ide NH b
5 nominum] nomini I 5 traici] trahici KM: traci, i s.l. N: trahi B: tercii H b
5 aut] om. B 6 in naves] inquam A: in aves H b: ignavos E 6 contrudi] trudi
N 6 exhausit, patres conscripti] p. c. exhausit : patres conscripti exhausit Mp
6 exhausit] hausit I: om. Hb 7 voluit] potuit E 1, del., s.l. voluit E 2 7 ne cau-
sam] nec causam KEO: ne causas N 7 diceret] dicere V 7 sestertio duode-
ciens cum] cum sestertiorum duodecies O 7 sestertio] sestercia B: sextertio V :
sestertia MpI 2 7 duodeciens] om. I: n del. D: duodecies KNEHP 7 duodecies
cum Caesare] cum cesare duodecies H b 7 paciscitur] pascicitur Mp: pasciscitur
B: pascitur E 8 quod] quos O 8 quippiam] quicquam H b 8 est, his] est
quae dico his P: hiis V 8 refelle] referte K1: refelle qui dico unde quomodo ne H:
dic add. SB 8 qui modo] quo modo NEP: quidem modo Mp: quommodo B
9 quidem] om. Mp 9 reluere «] relinire : relinere, e del., s.l. i Hb: reluere elu in
ras. V: relinquere I 9 tamquam] tanquam NMpMH b: tamque K: tanque P: om. L
9 somnio AFK 2TC2DS] somno K 1XEHBP: sonnio NI: sonno O: sono MMp: som-
nium C 1: sompno V 10 hortos] ortos DIH bMpMEHP 10 Tiburtem Cortius]
tiburti : tyburti AK: in tiburti D: tiburtii Mp: tirburtii V (r del.) 10 C.] g. BE:
gaii OMp 10 reliquas] et reliquas IHb 11 reliquas possessiones] reliquas pos-
sessionis B: possesiones reliquis O 11 neque piguit] que piguit om. O: pinguit N
11 P.] om. BIHb: publii OMp 12 domum emissem ] emissem : emissem
domum 12 eius … Caesar] paulo ante dominus villae cuius vetus fuerat Cesar I
12 eius Baiter] vetus : netus M
military-camp except in the excess of their faults and their cravings for
rebellion.63
19. “But after he became praetor, he conducted himself with mod-
esty and self-restraint”. 64 Ha! Perhaps then 65 he did not plunder his
province to such an extent that never did our allies suffer nor even im-
agine anything more grievous in war than they endured in peace, while
he was governor of Inner Africa? 66 From there he drained as much as
he could carry off in financial transactions or could be thrust into ships.
I would say , Fathers of the Senate, that he impounded as much he
desired. He reached an agreement with Caesar for twelve hundred thou-
sand sesterces in order not to be brought to trial. If these be at all false,
disprove them here, in front of these people! 67 How is it that you,
who could not even pawn back your father ’s house, suddenly, as if in
a dream became wealthy and procured very precious gardens, 68 the
Tiburtine country house of Caius Caesar 69 and the rest of your proper-
ties?70
20. And you are not ashamed to ask me why I bought the house
of Publius Crassus,71 while you own the very72 house, which
63 Cf. Sall. Cat. 14; Cic. Cat. 2, 8–10; Att. 187 (IX, 18), 2.
64 See Koster 1980, 197.
65 See Ernout 84.
66 Cf. Reynolds 236; Sall. Iug. 18, 12.
67 Cf. Cic. 4.
68 Cf. Tac. Ann. 13, 47; Hist. 3, 82.
69 Since no other evidence that Sallust possessed the house in Tibur survives, this
might have been a rhetorical parry to counter Sallust’s accusations concerning
Cicero’s ‘house in Tusculum’ (cf. Cic. 3, 4). Tusculum and Tibur (Tivoli) were
both fashionable resorts for the wealthy, not too far from Rome. In Tusculum
Cicero composed his philosophical works, Catullus owned a new villa near
Tibur. Augustus, Hadrian and perhaps Horace also all had villas here. Cf. Sen.
De benef. 4, 12, 3.
70 Cf. Ullman 1955, 370 f.
71 Cf. Cic. 2. See also p. 152–153.
72 See apparatus criticus p. 184. Cf. Ernout 69.
villae dominus sis cuius paulo ante fuerat Caesar . modo, inquam, patri-
monio non comesto sed devorato quibus rationibus repente factus es tam
adfluens et tam beatus? nam quis te faceret heredem, quem ne amicum
quidem suum satis honestum quisquam sibi ducit nisi similis ac par tui?
5 at hercules egregia facta maiorum tuorum te extollunt: quorum sive tu
similis es sive illi tui, nihil ad omnium scelus ac nequitiam addi potest.
verum, ut opinor, honores tui te faciunt insolentem. 21. tu, C. Sallusti,
idem putas esse bis senatorem et bis quaestorem f ieri quod bis consula-
rem et bis triumphalem? carere decet omni vitio, qui in alterum dicere
10 parat. is demum male dicit, qui non potest verum ab altero audire. sed tu,
omnium mensarum assecula, omnium cubiculorum in aetate paelex et
idem postea adulter, omnis ordinis turpitudo es et civilis belli memoria.
22. quid enim hoc gravius pati potuimus, quam quod te incolumem in hoc
ordine videmus? desine bonos petulantissime consectari, desine morbo
1 villae] millae N 1 1 sis] om. : recte Mp 1 fuerat ] fuerit FK : fuit A

1 non] om. K1 2 comesto Diomedes] comeso NAFXC EPMp, in ras. D: com-
meso KTB: commesso MO: commisso H: comesso IV 2 rationibus] orationibus
M1, corr. M2 2 repente] om. Hb: repente rationibus O 3 adfluens] affluens
KNEDIHbHPMMp 3 te faceret] faceret te V 3 quem ne] qui me E: ne
om. N 4 quidem] quod est B 4 suum] sui K 4 quisquam sibi] sibi quis-
quam E 4 quisquam] quispiam NM: om. IH b 4 ducit] duxit I 4 ac par tui]
apartui K 1, recte s.l. K2 5 hercules] hercle KMp: hercules A es in ras.: hercule
NLV 5 egregia] et egregia I 5 maiorum tuorum] tuorum maiorum O
6 similis] similses A 6 illi] ille A 6 tui N ] tibi AF Hb: tibi vel tui K
6 ac] sive N 6 addi] adde B 7 ut opinor] hopinor, h del. M1 7 tui] om. I
7 C.] gai K: crispe O: om. N 8 idem Jordan] totidem E: tantidem I: tantun-
dem M: tantum NHPO 8 putas] om. P 8 fieri] om. I 8 quod KXMp] quot
AFT E: quam I: quantum N 9 consularem] consulerem T e eras.: consulem L
9 bis] bis esse O 9 triumphalem] triumfalem Hb 9 carere] carcere T c eras.:
care E 9 decet] debet NILHb 9 dicere] edicere B 10 parat. is Jordan] para-
tus Hb: paratus est. is LSV : parat EPMp 10 male dicit] maledixit K
10 qui] qui in ras. K: quod A 10 potest] pote A, corr. A: post B 10 verum]
veritatem 10 altero] alio E: male add. SB 10 tu] om. O 1 1 assecula
ATE] adsecla rell.: asseda V: ascla KND: asecla L: assecla BMpHOPMH b, in ras. I
11 cubiculorum] cubilorum Hb1 cu s.l. Hb2 11 in aetate] in prima aetate B: in ea
etate O 12 omnis] omnis om. H 12 ordinis] om. A 12 et BX] om. rell.
12 belli] beli O 12 quid … videmus] om. Hb1 in mg. add. Hb2: quod B: vidimus,
e s.l. D 13 enim hoc] hoc enim E: enim s.l. A 13 quod] qui KB 13 incol-
umem] incolomen KBEP 13 hoc] om. BM 14 petulantissime consectari ]
petulantissima consectari (consert … BX) lingua rell.: petulantissime consectari
bonos A: bonos petulantissimis verbis consectari H b: petulantissima sectari lingua I
14 desine … unumquemque] in mg. V 14 desine] de ordine M
recently belonged to Caesar. Let me just add, once you had not so much
consumed as gulped down your inheritance, 73 by what means did you
suddenly become so swish and opulent? For who would make you his
heir, you, whom nobody would consider honest enough to count as a
friend, unless he were such-like, such a fellow as you?
But, by Heaven, the illustrious deeds of your ancestors extol you! 74
Whether you resemble them, or they resemble you, nothing can be added
to the wickedness and worthlessness of you all.
21. Nay, I assume 75 rather that it is your of ficial positions that make
you conceited. 76 Do you, Caius Sallust, think, that it is the same to be
twice a senator and twice a quaestor, as to be twice a consular and twice
to have had the honours of a triumph? 77 One should be free from any
blemish, when one gets up to denounce somebody else. He who cannot
bear to hear the truth from another , is in the end the one who wrongly
abuses others. You, the parasite of all others’ hospitality , the poacher in
your youth of all others’ bedrooms, and later their adulterous defiler, you
are a disgrace to all ordered society and an evocation of the civil war .78
22. For what worse could we endure than to see you safe and sound in
this assembly? Cease your vile haranguing of good men, 79 put a halt to
your malady of impudence, cease
73 Quoted by Diom. Art. Gram. I // Gram. Lat. (ed. Keil) I 387, 6. See ch. 3, p.112.
Cf. Cic. Sest. 111; Phil. 2, 67; Verr. 2, 3, 177; Cat. 29, 22; Quint. 8, 6, 25; Macr.
Sat. 3, 13, 6. For the Latin vocabulary of bankruptcy derived from words that de-
scribe indulgence in food, see Corbeill 1996, 131 ff.
74 Cf. Cic. 2.
75 Cf. Cic. 2; 4. See ch. 1, p. 24 f.
76 See Koster 1980, 198.
77 See Ernout 69.
78 Cf. Opelt 1965, 48, 154f. for paelex as a common abuse in the invective rhetoric.
Cf. Cic. 2. For turpitudo see Adams 1982, 201.
79 See above ch. 2, p. 33 and 40. Cf. Cic. Sest. 110; Cic. 1; 7.
procacitatis isto uti, desine unumquemque moribus tuis aestimare. His

moribus amicum tibi ef ficere non potes: videris velle inimicum habere.
Finem dicendi faciam, patres conscripti; saepe enim vidi gravius of-
fendere animos auditorum eos qui aliena f lagitia aperte dixerunt quam
5 eos qui commiserunt. Mihi quidem ratio habenda est, non quae Sallustius
merito debeat audire, sed ut ea dicam, si qua ego honeste ef fari possim.
1 isto uti] uti isto O 1 isto] istos, s del. H1 1 tuis] om. EI 1: tuis moribus Mp
1 aestimare] extimare V 1 His] hic E: hiis V 2 moribus] te add. E 2 ami-
cum tibi] tibi amicum Hb: tibi om. BM 2 potes] potens B: ex potest H1 2 velle
inimicum] inimicum velle O 2 velle] malle A 3 dicendi] dicendic, c del. E:
dicundi Hb 3 vidi] vidimus O 3 gravius] gravi … s.l. ter A 4 offendere] of-
fenfi N 4 animos] animum H b 4 eos] in eos Mp 4 aperte AXBEM] apte
rell. 5 eos] in eos Mp: eos om. O 5 commiserunt] commiserant H 5 Mihi]
multi T1 in mg. corr. T2 5 quidem] quicquam Mp 5 ratio] est ratio B 5 non
quae] neque T: non ex nam K: non quia L: numquam E: non quam, m del. H: non
quem P: quam M 5 non] non ut Hb: om. M 5 Sallustius] tuus add. O: abistius
N 6 audire] audire in ras. H 6 ut] om. E: sed et ut O 6 ego honeste] hon-
este ego KEH b: ego honestius N: honeste G 6 effari] affari V, e s.l. V pos-6
sim] possum VBasGrut
evaluating everybody with reference to your own character-traits.80 With

such traits, a friend you cannot make; and so you seem to want to have an
enemy.
I bring my speech to a close, Fathers of the Senate; I note that all too
often those people who speak openly about other peoples’ crimes cause
greater offence to listeners that those who actually committed the crimes.
I must therefore bear in mind, not the things Sallust deserves to hear ,
but rather what I can say, while still expressing myself in an honourable
manner.81
80 See Koster 1980, 198. See also ch. 1, p. 25 above.

81 See Ernout 70. Cf. Cic. Phil. 2, 47.
192
List of edited invectives 193
Appendix
List of edited invectives
(incunabula and 16th–20th centuries)
In this appendix the following abbreviations for collated editions are used:
Copinger Copinger W. A. Supplement to Hain’ s Repertorium Biblio-

graphicum or Collections towards a new edition of that
work. Milano, 1950.
IGI Indice generale degli incunaboli delle biblioteche d’Italia, v.
V, compilato da E. V alenziani, E. Cerulli e P . Veneziani.
Roma, 1972.
ISTC The Illustrated Incunabula Short-T itle Catalogue on CD-
Rom, Primary Source Media in association with the British
Library. 11997, 21998.
GKW Gesamtkatalog der W iegendrucke. Hsg. von der Kommis-
sion für den Gesamtkatalog der W iegendrucke, Band VI,
Leipzig, 1934.
H Hain L. Repertorium Bibliographicum, in quo libri omnes ab
arte typographica inventa usque ad annum MD. Stuttgartiae
et Tubingae, [1826–1891].
The editions, containing the invective against Cicero only , are marked
with an asterix (*); the editions, containing the invective against Sallust
only, are marked with two asterices (**). At the end of each description
follow folia or pages containing the invectives. Where this is not the case,
I have not seen the edition personally.
EDITIO PRINCEPS? Sallustius Crispus, Caius. Invectiva in Ciceronem. Ps.-

Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium; Pius II, Epistola contra V ernandum de
recommendatione poesis ad Guillelmum de Lapide; Epitaphium Leonardi
[Bruni] Aretini. [Colonia, typ. Dares (Johannes Solidi (Schilling)),
c. 1471]. The copies are presented in: Belgium – Bruxelles BR; France –
Paris BN; Germany – Heidelberg UB; Mainz PriesterSem; Great Britain –
Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum; Manchester JRL 18491; Oxford Bodley;
Italy – Firenze Laur; Roma Cas; Netherlands – The Hague MMW II 461;
Leiden UB 454; Utrecht UB 673. H 14236; IGI 8564 (1472!).
194 Appendix
EDITIO PRINCEPS? Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione;

De bello iugurthino. Venezia, Vindelino da Spira, 1471. Inc. V. 564 (1471),
ff. 66 r–70v. The copies are presented in: Italy – Bergamo C; Firenze Laur;
Milano Triv.; Ravenna C; Roma Cors; Torino N; Venezia N. H 14198; IGI
8528, p. 10.
Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; In-
vectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallus-
tium. [Fivizzano, Jacopo da Fivizzano], 1474; IGI 8531.
vectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in
Ciceronem; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Venezia, Giovanni da Colo-
nia e Johann Manthen, 23 III 1474. H 14201; IGI 8532.
Cicero, Marcus T ullius. In Catilinam orationes. [Cum:] Ps.-Cicero, In Catili-
nam invectiva V; Ps.-Catilina, In Ciceronem responsiva oratio; Sallustius,
In Ciceronem et invicem. Paris, Louis Simonel, c. 1475. H 14190, Copin-
ger 1611, GKW 6779.
vectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in
Ciceronem; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Milano, Filippo da Lavagna,
V kal. dec. [27 XI] 1476. H 14204; IGI 8535.
vectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem;
Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Milano, Jacopo Marliano,
XXII kal. dec. [22 XII?] 1477. H 14205; IGI 8536.
vectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Martialis, Distichon; Cicero,
Responsio in Sallustium. Venezia, Filippo di Pietro, 22 VI 1478. H 14207;
IGI 8538.
Responsio in Sallustium. [Vicenza, Giovanni Leonardo Longo, post 22 VI
1478]. Inc. 485, ff. 49r–52r. H 14187; IGI 8539.
tium; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem. [Milano, typ. Riccius,
c. 1480]. IGI 8541.
tium. Venezia, [Nicolò Girardengo], 1480. H 14210; IGI 8542.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. In Catilinam orationes. [Cum:] Ps.-Cicero, In Catili-
nam invectiva V; Ps.-Catilina, In Ciceronem responsiva oratio; Felicius
Durantinus: De coniuratione Catilinae; Sallustius, In Ciceronem et
invicem. Paris, Louis Simonel, c. 1480. Hain-Copinger 14208, GKW
6781.
tium. Venezia, Battista Torti, 23 XII 1481. H 14211; IGI 8543.

tium. Roma, [Eucharius Silber], 17 IV 1482. H 14213; IGI 8545.
Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino;
Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] V ita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sal-
lustium. Venezia, Bernardino Benali e soci, 23 IV 1485. H 14216; IGI
8546.
vectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem;
Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Milano, [Gaspare da Can-
tone], 4 V 1485. H 14215; IGI 8547.
Responsio in Sallustium; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem. Cura-
vit Justinianus Romanus. [Venezia], Giovanni Rosso e Francesco de’ Madi,
[c. 1490]. H 14193?; IGI 8548, 8549.
Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius Valla;
De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem; Excerpta ex libris histori-
arum. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; Vita
Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. V enezia, Filippo Pinzi, II V
1491. H 14222; IGI 8551.
Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. V enezia, Teodoro Ragazzoni,
9 VII 1492. H 14223; IGI 8552.
Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Milano, Ulrich Scinzenzeler ,
31 I 1493. H 14225; IGI 8553.
Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. V enezia, Giovanni T acuino
5 VIII 1493. H 14226; IGI 8554.
* Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius V alla;
Sallustii. Venezia, Bernardino Benali, [1493?]. H 14221; IGI 8555.
Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius
Valla; De bello iugurthino, comm. Johannes Chrysostomus Soldus; Ex-
cerpta ex libris historiarum; Invectiva in Ciceronem. Castigavit Pompo-
nius Laetus. Revisit Johannes Britannicus. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus,
Epistola ad Augustinum Maffeum; Johannes Chrysostomus Soldus, Epis-
tolae duo ad Barthlomaeum fratrem; Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in
Sallustium; Catilina, Epistola responsiva in Ciceronem. Brescia, Ber-
196 Appendix
nardino Misinta, ed. Angelo e Jacopo de’ Britannici, id. ian. [13 I] 1495.
H 14230; IGI 8557.
De bello iugurthino, comm. Johannes Chrysostomus Soldus; Excerpta ex
libris historiarum; Invectiva in Ciceronem. Castigavit Pomponius Laetus.
Revisit Johannes Britannicus. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Au-
gustinum Maf feum; Johannes Chrysostomus Soldus, Epistolae duo ad
Barthlomaeum fratrem; V ita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium;
Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem. [V enezia, Cristoforo de’ Pensi,
post 1496]. Inc. 312, ff. 105r–107r. H 14228, 14229; IGI 8558, 8559.
Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius V alla,
Omnibonus Leonicenus; De bello iugurthino, comm. Johannes Chrysosto-
mus Soldus; Excerpta ex libris historiarum; Invectiva in Ciceronem. Casti-
gavit Pomponius Laetus. Revisit Johannes Britannicus. [Cum:] Pomponius
Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; Johannes Chrysostomus Sol-
dus, Epistolae duo ad Barthlomaeum fratrem; V ita Sallustii; Cicero, Re-
sponsio in Sallustium; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem. Venezia,
Giovanni Tacuino, 20 VII 1500. H 14233; IGI 8560.
C. Crispi Sallustii Liber de coniuratione Catilinae. De Bello Iugurthino. In M.
T. Ciceronem invectiva. M. T. Ciceronis in Crispum Sallustium responsio.
Florentia. Giunta. 1503.
C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae. Eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino.
Eiusdem oratio contra M. T . Ciceronem. M. T. Ciceronis oratio contra C.
Crispum Sallustium. Eiusdem orations quatuor contra Lucium Catilinam.
Porcii Latronis declamatio contra Lucium Catilinam. Orationes quaedam
ex libris historiarum C. Crispi Sallustii. V enetiis in Aedibus Aldi, et An-
dreae Asulani soceri mense Aprili MDIX. [1509] pp. 149–159.
tium. Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; V enezia,
Giovanni Tacuino, die XIX Maii MDXI. [1511]; ff. 126r–129r.
C. Crispi Sallustii Catilina et Jugurthina cum reliquis collectaneis ab Ascensio;
utcunque explanatis; hic suum capit f inem diligenti recognitione. Impres-
sum V enetiis per Bartholomeum de Zannis de Portesio. Anno Domini
MDXIII. Die tertio mensis Februarii. [1513]; ff. 30r–33r.
C. Crispi Sallustii de L. Sergii Catilinae coniuratione, et Bello Iugurthino his-
toriae. Cum aliis quibusdam, quae sequens indicabit pagella. Ioan. Gryp-
hius excudebat Venetiis 15 . . ?; pp. 142–152.
Caii Crispi Sallustii Historiographi Opus una cum infrascriptis commentaries
videlicet: Laurentii Vallae: Omniboni Leoniceni: et Iodoci Badio Ascensii in
eiusdem bello Catilinario. In bello vero Iugurthino fratris Ioannis Chrisos-
tomi Soldi Brixiani, eiusdem Ascensii. Philippi Beroaldi invectivarum Cice-
ronis comendatione. Eiusdem Sallustii in Ciceronem invectiva, Ciceronis in
eundem responsive. Venetiis, per Bernardinum de Vianis de Lexona Vercel-
lensem. Anno domini MDXXI. Die XV Novembris. [1521]; f f. 146 v–149r.
C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae. Eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino. Or-
ationes quaedam ex libris historiarum C. Crispi Sallustii. Oratio contra
M. T. Ciceronem. Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium. Eiusdem

orationes quatuor contra Catilinam. Porcii Latronis declamatio contra
L. Catilinam. Basileae, 1521.
C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae. Eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino.
Eiusdem oratio contra M. T . Ciceronem. M. T. Ciceronis oratio contra C.
Crispum Sallustium. Eiusdem orations quatuor contra Lucium Catilinam.
Porcii Latronis declamatio contra Lucium Catilinam. Quae omnia solerti
nuper cura repurgata sunt, ac quo quaeque ordine optime digesta. Venetiis
in Aedibus Aldi, et Andreae Asulani soceri mense Ianuario MDXXI.
[1522]; ff. 93v–99r.
C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino; or-
ationes quaedam ex libris historiarum C. Crispi Sallustii. Eiusdem oratio
contra M. T. Ciceronem oratio. M. Tullii Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum
Sallustium. Eiusdem orationes quatuor contra Lucium Catilinam. Quae
omnia solerti nuper cura repur gata sunt, ac suo quaeque ordine optime
digesta. Venetiis per Franciscum Garonum. Anno domini MCCCCCXXVI,
Idibus Ianuarii. [1526]; ff. 81v–86r.
L. Apuleii Madaurensis Opera; C.Crispi Sallustii Opera. Florentiae per hae-
redes Philippi Iuntae Anno Domini. MDXXVII, Mense Iunii [1527];
ff. 97v–102v.
C. Crispi Sallustii in M. T. Ciceronem Oratio: et Ciceronis in eundem Respon-
sio: cum F. Sylvii Ambiani Commentariis. Apud Iodocum Badium Ascen-
sium. Cum privilegio. Parisiis, mense Maio Anno MDXXXII [1532].
C. Crispi Sallusti in M. T . Ciceronem Oratio. Ciceronis … Responsio. Cum
scholiis rhetoricis F. Iammetii Textoris. – Parisiis apud Hieronym. Gormo-
tum 1535.
Hoc in volumine C. Crispi Sallustii haec omnia continentur. Epistola Pomponii
ad Augustinum Mapfeum; Epistola Io. Badii Ascensii nobiliss. ac Rever-
endo D. Francisco Rouhan Lugdunensium Archipraesuli; Ex libris Petri
Criniti de historicis, ac oratoribus latinis. M. T . Ciceronis oratio in L. Ca-
tilinam. C. Crispi Sallustii vita; C. Crispi Sallustii bellum Catilinarium cum
interpretationibus Laurentii Vall., Omniboni Leoniceni, et Io. Badii Ascen-
sii; bellum Iugurthinum cum comm. Io. Chry. Soldi Brixiani, necno et eius-
dem Ascensii; M. T. Ciceronis in Catilinam invectivae quinque; Orationes
duae ad Caesarem senem de Republica. Venetiis in aedibus Ioannis Tacuini
de Tridino. Anno MDXXXVI, Die XXI Ianu. [1536]; ff. 142r–144r.
C. Crispi Sallustii de L. Ser gii Catilinae coniuratione ac Bello Iugurthino his-
toriae. Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium. Eiusdem quatuor or-
ationes contra Lucium Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex lib. Historiarum
C. Cr. Sallustii. Lugduni, Sebast. Gryphius. 1540.
Hoc in volumine C. Crispi Sallustii haec omnia continentur. Epistola Pomponii
ad Augustinum Mapfeum; Epistola Io. Badii Ascensii nobiliss. ac Rever-
endo D. Francisco Rouhan Lugdunensium Archipraesuli; Ex libris Petri
Criniti de historicis, ac oratoribus latinis. M. T . Ciceronis oratio in L. Ca-
tilinam. C. Crispi Sallustii vita; C. Crispi Sallustii bellum Catilinarium cum
interpretationibus Laurentii Vall., Omniboni Leoniceni, et Io. Badii Ascen-
sii; bellum Iugurthinum cum comm. Io. Chry. Soldi Brixiani, necno et eius-
198 Appendix
dem Ascensii; M. T. Ciceronis in Catilinam invectivae quinque; Orationes

duae ad Caesarem senem de Republica. Venetiis in aedibus Ioannis Tacuini
de Tridino. Anno MDXLI, Die I Augu. [1541]; ff. 142r–144r.
C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, et de Bello Iugurthino historiae; in
M. T. Ciceronem oratio. M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Sallustium Responsio. Eius-
dem Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes IIII. Porcii Latronis Declamatio in
L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Sallustii. V enetiis,
apud Hieronymum Scotum. MDXLVI [1546]; ff. 110v–116r.
C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, et de Bello Iugurthino historiae;
in M. T . Ciceronem oratio. M. T ullii Ciceronis ad Sallustium Respon-
sio. Eiusdem Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes V . Lucii Catilinae in
M. T. Ciceronem orationes responsivae duae. Porcii Latronis Declamatio in
L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Sallustii. Venetiis,
MDXLVII [1547]; ff. 128r–132r.
C. Crispi Sallustii de L. Sergii Catilinae coniuratione, ac Bello Iugurthino his-
toriae; eiusdem in M. T. Ciceronem. M. T. Cic. in Sallustium Recriminatio.
Porcii Latronis Declamatio contra L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex
libris historiarum C. Crispi Sallustii. Apud Seb. Gryphium, Lugduni, 1551;
pp. 181–194.
C. Crispi Sallustii in M. T. Ciceronem invectiva oratio et Ciceronis in eundem
responsio. Parisii Richardus, 1554.
C. Salustii Crispi de coniuratione Catilinae, et de bello Iugurthino Historiae. In
M. Tullium Ciceronem oratio, M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Salustium responsio.
Eiusdem Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes quinque, Lucii Catilinae in
M. T. Ciceronem orationes responsivae duae. Porcii Latronis declamatio
in L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Salustii. Cum
Iodoci Badii Ascensii in haec omnia familiaribus explanationibus, et alio-
rum doctissimorum virorum commentariis et annotationibus sparsim ap-
positis, quibus dif ficillima quaeque Salustii loca explicantur , et explan-
antur. Viri autem illi qui praeter iam dictum Ascensium, Salustianum hoc
opus interpretantur, hi sunt Laurentius Valla, Ioan. Chrysostomus Soldus,
Bartholomaeus Marlianus, Franciscus Sylvius Ambianus, Iacobus Crucius
Bononiensis. Adiectis praeterea duobus locupletissimis indicibus, quorum
alter histiriarum Salustii memorabilia: alter ea, quae ab interpretibus anno-
tata sunt, plane demostrat. V enetiis, Apud Ioannem Mariam Bonellum.
MDLXV. [1555]; ff. 119v–120r, 121r–122r.
C. Sallustii Crispi de coniuratione Catilinae, et Bello Iugurthino historiae; eius-
dem orationes quaedam ex libris historiarum. Orationes contrariae, quarum
altera Salustio tribuitur, altera Ciceroni. Venetiis, in Aedibus Aldi MDLVII
[1557]; ff. 133v–140v.
C. Sallustii Crispi de coniuratione Catilinae, et de Bello Iugurthino; eiusdem
orationes quaedam ex libris historiarum. Orationes contrariae, quarum al-
tera Salustio tribuitur , altera Ciceroni. V enetiis, in Aedibus Aldi MDLX
[1560]; ff. 122r–128r.
Caii Sallustii Crispi de L. Sergii Catilinae coniuratione, et Bello Iugurthino his-
toriae; cum aliis quibusdam, quae sequens indicabit pagella. Patavii, Ioan.
Gryphius excudebat, MDLXIII. [1563]; pp. 142–152.
C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum; eiusdem non-

nulla ex libris historiarum; oratio Sallustii in Ciceronem, et altera in Sal-
lustium Ciceroni falso attributa; omnia nunc primum post Aldi Manutii
editionem ex antiquitatis fontibus quamaccuratissime correcta: necnon va-
riis lectionibus, doctisque annotationibus illustrata. His accessit Liber sin-
gularis, qui inscribitur; fragmenta Historiarum C. Sallustii Crispi e scrip-
toribus antiquis ab Aldo Manutio, Pauli F. collecta. Scholia eiusdem. Index
rerum et verborum memorabilium. Antverpiae; ex of ficina Christophori
Plantini. M.D.LXIIII. [1564] Cum privilegio ad VI. annos; pp. 211–222.
C. Crispi Salustii Latinorum historicorum praestantissimi, opera, quae quidem
extant, omnia: videlicet, L. Sergii Caqtilinae contra Senatum Rom. Coniu-
ratio, seu Bellum Catilinum item Bellum Iugurthinum. Una cum doctis-
simorum tam superioris quam nostri seculi virorum commentariis, casti-
gationibus, scholiis, longe quam antehac emendationibus: nempe Laurentii
Vallae, Iod. Badii Ascensii, Ioan. Chrisost. Soldi, Iacobi Bononiensis,
Omniboni Leoniceni, Bartholomaei Zanchi, V incent. Castilionei, Ioannis
Rivii, Henrici Glareani, quibus accesserunt, praeter eiusdem et M. T. Cice-
ronis orationes contrarias, item Ciceronis et Porcii Latronis in Catilinam
invectivas, et fragmehta quaedam ex libris Historiarum Salustii; etiam
Constantii Felicii Durantini historia coniurationis Catilinae, non pauca a
Salustio praetermissa continens; item rerum et verborum toto opere mem-
orabilium index copiosus. Cum Caesereae Maiest. Gratia et privilegio
Basileae, per Henricum Petri. 1564; pp. 1021–1032.
C. Salustii Crispi de coniuratione Catilinae, et de bello Iugurthino Historiae. In
M. Tullium Ciceronem oratio, M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Salustium responsio.
Eiusdem Ciceronis in L Catilinam orationes quinque, Lucii Catilinae in
M. T. Ciceronem orationes responsivae duae. Porcii Latronis declamatio in
L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Salustii. Cum Io-
doci Badii Ascensii in haec omnia familiaribus explanationibus, et aliorum
doctissimorum virorum commentariis et annotationibus sparsim appositis,
quibus difficillima quaeque Salustii loca explicantur , et explanantur . Viri
autem illi qui praeter iam dictum Ascensium, Salustianum hoc opus in-
terpretantur, hi sunt Laurentius V alla, Ioan. Chrysostomus Soldus, Bar-
tholomaeus Marlianus, Franciscus Sylvius Ambianus, Iacobus Crucius
Bononiensis. Adiectis praeterea duobus locupletissimis indicibus, quorum
alter histiriarum Salustii memorabilia: alter ea, quae ab MDLXV . [1565];
ff. 119v–120r, 121r–122r.
C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum. Fragmenta in-
terpretibus annotata sunt, plane demostrat. V enetiis, Apud Ioannem Ma-
riam Bonellum eiusdem historiarum, e scriptoribus antiquis ab Aldo Manu-
tio, Paulli F . collecta. Scholia Aldi Manutii. V enetiis, in Aedibus Aldi
MDLXVII [1567]; ff. 122v–128v.
In Sallustii Crispi Catilinam, et Iugurtham, Ioannis Rivii Castigationum lib. II
Aldi Manutii Paulli F. Scholia Cypriani a Popma Emendationes in Histori-
arum lib. VI a Ludovico Carrione collectos, auctos, et restitutos. Eiusdem
Lud. Carrionis Scholia. Antverpiae. Ex of ficina Christophori Plantini
Architypographi Regii. MDLXXIX. [1579]
200 Appendix
C. Crispi Salustii De L. Ser gii Catilinae coniuratione, et Bello Iugurthino his-

toriae, cum reliquis orationibus, quas index sequentis paginae docebit.
Venetiis, apud Ioan. Gryphium, MDLXXXIIII [1584]; pp. 142–152.
Caii Sallustii Crispi opera quae exstant, una cum fragmentis. Antverpiae, Apud
Christophorum Plantinum. MDLXXXVII [1587]; pp. 132–141.
C. Crispi Salustii Historiae, De coniuratione L. Catilinae, De bello Iugurthino,
Ad haec Salustii oratio in M. Tullium Ciceronem. Ciceronis responsio ad Sa-
lustium. Orationes quatuor in Catilinam, etiam Ciceronis. Fragmentum or-
ationis Cic. De moribus Catilinae. Portii Latronis declamatio in Catilinam.
Fragmenta quaedam, ex libris historiarum Salustii. Omnia haec, ad auth-
entica exemplaria collata: et variis lectionibus expolita: addito quoq; auctoris
elogio, necnon Chronico, pro ratione temporis una cum Henrici Glareani an-
notationibus. Et Coelii Secundi Curionis, nunc primum editis. Iacobi Bono-
niensis scholiis. Huldrichi Hutteni stosculis. Rerum ac verborum Indice co-
piosissimo Basileae, per Sebastianum Henricpetri. Anno 1590; pp.167–179.
C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant. Helias Putschius ex ifde vetustiss.
Cod. Correxit, et Notas addidit; idem Fragmenta centum locis auxit et in-
terpolavit. Adiecta v.c. Petri Ciacconii Toletani Notae. Ex Officina Planti-
niana Raphelengii, [Leiden], MDCII. [1602]; pp. 215–226.
C.Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant ex recognitione Iani Gruteri
accedunt. Castigg. Annotat. Notae as Scholia Glareani, Popmae, Aldi ne-
potis, Palmerii, Coleri, Rivii, Carrionis, Ursini, Dousae, Putschii. Franco-
furti. E Collegio Paltheniano, Sumptibus Ionae Rhodii MDCVII. [1607];
pp. 129–135.
C. Crispi Sallustii Opera Quae exstant, Omnia variarum Lectionum, ac libello-
rum quos pagina sequens indicat, accessione aucta: atque accuratius emen-
data. Superiorum permissu. Romae. Ex of ficina Sforziniana, et Pippia
MDCIX. [1609] Apud Iacobum Mascardum; pp. 217–228.
C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum. Fragmenta
eiusdem historiarum, et scriptoribus antiquis ab Aldo Manutio, Paulli F .
collecta. Scholia Aldi Manutii. Venetiis, MDCX. [1610]; pp. 208–218.
C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant. Ad Petri Ciacconii, Heliae Putschii,
aliorumque notas et observations recognita. Raphelengii. Plantinus. 1612.
C. Crispus Sallustius. Amstelredami, apud Guil. Ianssonium, 1621; pp.170–176.
C. Sallustius Crispus cum veterum Historicorum fragmentis. Lugduni Batavo-
rum. Ex officina Elzeviriana. Anno 1634; pp. 205–216.
Caius Sallustius Crispus, primus in historia cum fragmentis veterum historico-
rum huic Editioni accesserunt Monita Politica, Ethica, Militaria & alia
ex Sallustio; Ciceronis Orat. invectivae in Catilinam, Porcii Latronis De-
clamatio in eundem. Ad Illustrem, nobilissimum ac magnif icum D. Clau-
dium Salmasium. Lugd. Batavorum ex Of ficina Typographica Justi Livii
MDCXLV. [1645]; pp. 199–209.
C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. Ed. J. Ph. Pareus. Frankfurt, 1649.
* C. Sallustii Crispi Opera, quae extant, omnia: cum selectissimis V ariorum ob-
servationibus et accurata recensione Antonii Thysii. Editio secunda Auc-
tior et Emendatior Lugduni Batavorum. Apud Franciscum Hackium. 1649;
pp. 543–546.
C. Sallustius Crispus cum veterum Historicorum fragmentis. Amstelodami. Ex

officina Elzeviriana. Anno 1658; pp. 205–216.
* C. Sallustii Crispi Opera, quae extant, omnia: cum selectissimis V ariorum ob-
servationibus et accurata recensione Antonii Thysii. Editio secunda Auc-
tior et Emendatior Lugduni Batavorum. Apud Franciscum Hackium. 1659;
pp. 543–546.
* C. Sallustii Crispi Quae exstant. Ex recensione I. F. Gronovii cum Variorum
Observationibus ab Ant. Thysio collectis. Lugd. Batav. Et Roterod. Ex Of-
ficina Hackiana. 1665; pp. 543–546.
C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. In usum serenissimi Galliarum Delphini, dilig-
enter recensuit, notulas addidit Daniel Crispinus. Parisiis, apud Fredericum
Leonard T ypographum Regis, Serenissimi Delphini, et Cleri Gallicani.
MDCLXXIV. Cum privilegio Regis [1674]; pp. 225–234.
C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. Ed. J. Ph. Pareus. Frankfurt, 1676.
* C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant cum commentariis integris Ioh.
Rivii, Aldi Manutii, Petri Ciacconii, Fulvii Ursini et Heliae Putschii, et se-
lectis Iani Gruteri, H. Glareani, Cypr. a Popma, Ludov. Carrionis, Iani Dou-
zae, et aliorum. Accedunt huic Editioni Iani Melleri Palmerii spicilegia in
eundem Auctorem. Cum Indice Rerum et Verborum locupletissimo. Editio
novissima Lugd. Batav . Ex Of ficina Hackiana, a. MDCLXXVII. [1677];
pp. 569–573.
* C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant cum commentariis integris Ioh.
Rivii, Aldi Manutii, Petri Ciacconii, Fulvii Ursini et Heliae Putschii, et se-
lectis Iani Gruteri, H. Glareani, Cypr. a Popma, Ludov. Carrionis, Iani Dou-
zae, et aliorum. Accedunt huic Editioni Iani Melleri Palmerii spicilegia in
eundem Auctorem. Cum Indice Rerum et V erborum locupletissimo.
Editio novissima Amstelodami. Ex Of ficina Henrici et V iduae Theodori
Boom, MDLXXXX. [1690]; pp. 569–573.
C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia cum Historicorum veterum fragmentis: quae
variis variorum in eum, quin [et] suis observationibus, dilucidavit, nec
minus adjecta Chrestomathia philologici-oratoria auxit M. Samuel
Grosser. Dresdae; Lipsiae. Joh. Christ. Mithius [et] Joh. Christ. Zimmer-
mannus. 1699.
* C. Crispi Sallustii Quae exstant; cum Notis Integris Glareani, Rivii, Ciacco-
nii, Gruteri, Carrionis, Manutii, Putschii, Dousae, Selectis Castilionei, C. et
A. Popmae, Palmerii, Ursini, J. Fr. Cronovii, Victorii etc. Accedunt Julius
Exsuperantius, Porcius Latro; et Fragmenta historicorum vett. Cum Notis
A. Popmae. Recensuit, Notas perpetuas, et Indices adiecit Josephus Wasse,
Coll. Regin. apud Cantab. Socius; et Nobiliss. Marchoni de Kent a Sacris
Domesticis. Praemittitur Sallustii V ita, Auctore, V .Cl. Joanne Clerico.
Cantabrigiae, Typis Academicis, apud Cornelium Crownf ield, Celeberri-
mae Academiae Typographum MDCCX. [1710]; pp. 139–143.
C. Crispi Sallustii quae exstant. Ex optimis codd. accuratissime castigata. Ac-
cedunt Julius Exsuperantius, Porcius Latro; et fragmenta historicorum
veterum. In quibus quid praestitum nunc primum sit, et quae adiuncta his
fuerint, indicat Epistola ad Lectorem. Patavii, CDCCXXII. Excudebat Jo-
sephus Cominus superiorum permissu. [1722]; pp. 203–213.
202 Appendix
Caii Crispi Sallustii quae exstant item Epistolae de Republica ordinanda, decla-
matio in Ciceronem et Pseudociceronis in Sallustium nec non Jul. Exsuper-
antius de bellis civilibus ac Porcius Latro in Catilinam recensuit diligentis-
sime et adnotationibus illustravit Gottlieb Cortius, accedunt fragmenta
veterum historicorum Constantius Felicius Durantinus de Coniuratione
Catilinae et Index necessarius. Lipsiae. Apud Joh. Frid. Gleditschii B. Fil-
ium. MDCCXXIV. [1724]; pp. 1048–1069.
Caii Crispi Sallustii quae exstant item Epistolae de Republica ordinanda, de-
clamatio in Ciceronem et Pseudociceronis in Sallustium nec non Jul.
Exsuperantius de bellis civilibus ac Porcius Latro in Catilinam recensuit
diligentissime et adnotationibus illustravit Gottlieb Cortius, accedunt
fragmenta veterum historicorum Constantius Felicius Durantinus de Co-
niuratione Catilinae et Index necessarius. V enetiis, excudit Jo. Baptista
Paschalius. MDCCXXXVII. Superiorum permissu, ac privilegio. [1737];
pp. 893–912.
C. Crispi Sallustii quae exstant. Cum notis integris Glareani, Rivii, Ciacconii,
Ursini, Carrionis, Manutii, Coleri, C. et A. Popmae, Palmerii, Putschii,
Douzae, Gruteri, Ruperti, Graswinckelii, et Josephi W asse; atque selectis
Castilionei, Zanchii, J. Fr. Gronovii, Jani Broukhusii etc. Accedunt Julius
Exsuperantius et Porcius Latro, ut et Fragmenta Historicorum, cum notis
integris A. Popmae, Coleri, Ruperti, Wasse, Broukhusii, etc. Cura Sigeberti
Havercampi cum Indicibus copiosissimis. Tomus primus, tomus secundus.
Amstelaedami, apud F. Chaguion, J, Catuffe, H. Uytwerf. Hagae Comitis,
apud P. Gosse, J. Neaulme, A. Moetjens, A. V an Dole. Ultrajecti, apud
Steph. Neaulme. M.DCCXLII. [1742]; v. II, pp. 206–220.
C. Crispi Sallustii Catilinarium et Jugurthinum Bellum P . Guidonis Ferrarii
S. J. diligentia illustratum ad usum Universitatis Braydensis. In hac novis-
sima editione. Accedunt reliqua Sallustii quae extant omnia una cum Porcii
Latronis in Catilinam Declamatione, et Veterum Historicorum Fragmentis.
Venetiis, MDCCLXI. Ex Typographia Remondiniana. Superiorum permissu,
ac privilegio. [1761]; pp. 183–190.
C. Sallustii Crispi Opera cum duabus orationibus ad C. Caesarem et Decla-
mationibus una in Ciceronem in Sallustium altera. Halae, Impensis Orpha-
notrophei anno MDCCLXXII. [1772]; pp. 197–208.
C. Crispus Sallustius et L. Annaeus Florus. Birminghamiae: Typis Joannis Bas-
kerville. M.D.CCLXXIII. [1773]; pp. 196–198.
Caii Crispi Sallustii Opera novissime recognita emendata et illustrata, praemit-
tuntur vita a Io. Clerico scripta et notitia literaria studiis societatis bipon-
tiae. Editio II accuratior et auctior . Biponti apud Petrum Hallanzy
MDCCLXXX. [1780]; pp. 315–326.
C. Crispi Sallustii quae extant opera ex optimis codicibus accuratissime casti-
gata. Cum notis selectioribus. V enetiis MDCCLXXXVI. Apud Thomam
Bettinelli. Cum Facultate, ac Privilegio. [1786]; pp. 276–290.
C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. In usum serenissimi Galliarum Delphini, di-
ligenter recensuit, notulas addidit Daniel Crispinus. Bassani, MDCCXC.
Prostant Venetiis apud Remondini. Superiorum Permissu ac Privilegio.
[1790]; pp. 225–234.
C. Crispi Sallustii Opera omnia. T omus I et II. Parmae in Aedibus Palatinis

typis Bodonianis MDCCIC [1799].
C. C. Sallustii Catilinaria et Iugurthina bella, editio stereotypa. Parisiis, ex of-
ficina stereotypa P. Didot natu majoris, et F. Didot. Anno 1801.
C. Crispi Sallustii opera cum historiarum fragmentis, duabus epistolis as
C. Caesarem et declamationibus, una in Ciceronem, in Sallustium altera.
Editio emendatior. Halae, Berolini. 1817.
Caius Crispus Sallustius ad codices parisinos recensitus cum varietate lectio-
num et novis commentariis item Iulius Exsuperantius e codice nondum ex-
plorato emendatus curante J. L. Burnouf. Rhetorices in collegio Ludovici
Magni, et eloquentiae Latinae in Regio Franciae Collegio professore. Pari-
siis. Colligebat Nicolaus Eligius Lemaire Poeseos Latinae Professor
MDCCCXXI. [1821]
Caius Crispus Sallustius cum veterum historicorum fragmentis. Bassani, suis
typis Remondini edidit, 1851; pp. 165–173.
M. Tullii Ciceronis opera quae supersunt omnia ex recensione Io. Casp. Orellii.
Editio altera emendatior. Opus morte Orellii interruptum continuaverunt I.
G. Baiterus et C. Halmius. Voluminis II. Pars II. Turici, sumptibus ac typis
Orellii Füsslini et sociorum. Londinii, Williams et Norgate. Amstelodami,
Io. Müller. MDCCCLVI. [1856]; pp. 1424–1430.
C. Sallustii Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha, Historiarum reliquiae potiores incerti
rhetoris suasoriae ad Caesarem senem de Re Publica Henricus Jordaniterum
recognovit, accedunt incerti rhetoris invectivae T ullii et Sallustii personis
tributae. Berolini apud Weidmannos MDCCCLXXVI. [1876]; pp. 145–156.
Wirz H., Sallustius in Ciceronem, ein klassisches Stück Anticicero. In: Fest-
schrift M. Büdingers, Innsbruck, 1898: 91–116.
Sallusti in Ciceronem et Invicem Invectivae. Recensuit Alphonsus Kurfess.
Lipsiae in aedibus B. G. Teubneri MCMXIV [11914], 51970.
Kurfess A. Sallusts Invektive gegen Cicero. Ein Pamphlet aus dem Jahre 54
v. Chr., Selbstverlag des Verfassers. (‘Sonderausgabe’)
Sallust with an English T ranslation by J. C. Rolfe, Professor of Latin in the
University of Pennsylvania. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard Univer-
sity Press, London William Heinemann LTD, 11921, 21931; pp. 492–521.
Sallustio Minore. Invectivae in Ciceronem, Epistolae ad Caesarem. Studio in-
troduttivo e commento di D. Romano. 1948.
Sallust, Werke und Schriften, hsg. und übersetzt von W. Schöne unter Mitwir-
kung von W. Eisenhut. München, 21960, 31965.
* C. Sallustius Crispus. Invektive und Episteln. Hsg., übersetzt und kommen-
tiert von Karl Vretska. B. I, Einleitung, Text und Übersetzung. B. II. Kom-
mentar, Wortindex zur Invektive. Heidelberg, 1961.
Pseudo-Sallust. Lettres à César, Invectives. Texte établie, traduit et commenté
par A. Ernout. Paris, Société d’ Édition “Les Belles Lettres”, 1962.
* Appendix Sallustiana. Invectiva in M. T ullium Ciceronem. Introduzione,
edizione critica, traduzione e commento a cura di E. Pasoli. Bologna, 1989
(11965).
* Opere di Caio Sallustio Crispo a cura di Paolo Frassinetti e Lucia di Salvo.
Torino, 1991 (11963); pp. 574–581.
204 Appendix
C. Sallusti Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha, Historiarum Fragmenta Selecta, Appendix

Sallustiana. Recognovit breviore adnotatione critica instruxit L. D. Rey-
nolds, collegii Aenei Nasi apud Oxonienses Socius. Oxonii e Typographeo
Clarendoniano, 1991; pp. 223–237.
Cicero. Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Letter Fragments. Letter to Octavian. In-
vectives. Handbook of Electioneering. Edited and translated by D. R.
Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press,
London, England 2002; pp. 359–391.
Bibliography 205
Bibliography
Editions
C. Sallustii Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha … Ed. by H. Jordan. Berlin, 1876.

Sallustii in Ciceronem et Invicem Invectivae. Ed. by A. Kurfess. Leipzig,11914,
21950, 31958, 41962, 51970.
C. Sallustii Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha … Ed. by L. D. Reynolds. Oxford, 1991.
Catalogues of Manuscripts
A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. II, III
(London 1808).
A Catalogue of the Manuscripts preserved in the Library of the University of
Cambridge, I 2 (Cambridge 1856), II 2 (Cambridge 1857).
A Descriptive Catalogue of the Additional Illuminated Manuscripts in the
Fitzwilliam Museum, by Fr . Wormald & Ph. M. Giles, v . 1 (Cambridge
1982).
A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Gonville and
Caius College, Cambridge, by M. Rhodes James, v . 2 (Cambridge 1908).
A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Pembroke Col-
lege, Cambridge, by M. Rhodes James (Cambridge 1905).
A Summary Catalogue of Microfilms of One Thousand Scientific Manuscripts
in the Ambrosiana Library, Milan, by A. L. Gabriel (Notre Dame, Indiana
USA 1968).
A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at
Oxford by F. Madan, vol. III (Oxford 1895), vol. IV (Oxford 1897), vol. V
(Oxford 1905).
Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek zu T rier, 9.
Heft, Die juristischen Handschriften von Dr . G. Kentenich (T rier 1919).
Bibliotheca Manuscripta ad S. Marci V enetiarum a G. V alentinelli, t. IV
Codices mss. latini (Venetiis 1871).
Bibliotheca Universitatis Leidensis14, Codices Vossiani Latini descripsit K. A.
De Meyier, pars II, codices in quarto (Leiden 1975).
Biblioteche e Archivi, v. 5, Manoscritti medievali della Toscana, v. 2, I manos-
critti medievali della Provincia di Prato a cura di S. Bianchi ecc. (Firenze
1999).
Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Bodleianae pars III, conf. H.
O. Coxe (Oxford 1854).
Catalogo dei codici latini della Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana di Venezia, a P.
Zorzanello, v. 1 (Trezzano 1980), v. 2 (Trezzano 1981), v. 3 (Trezzano 1985).
206 Bibliography
Catálogo de los Códices Latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial por el

P.Guillermo Antolín, vol. II (Madrid 1911), vol. III (Madrid 1913).
Catalogo de Manuscritos de la Biblioteca de Santa Cruz por M. de las Nieves
Alonso-Cortés (Valladolid 1976).
Catalogo descrittivo dei manoscritti della Biblioteca Comunale di Verona, a G.
Biadego (Verona 1892).
Catalogo sommario dei manoscritti del fondo Rossi, sezione Corsiniana, di A.
Petrucci (Roma 1977).
Catalogue des Manuscrits de classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Royale de
Bruxelles par P. Thomas (Gand 1896).
Catalogue général des Manuscrits des Bibliothèques Publiques de France, Dé-
partements, t. 1 (Paris 1849), t. 2 (Paris 1855), t. 3 (Paris 1861), t. 7 (Paris
1885), t. 13 (Paris 1891), t. 37 (Paris 1900), t. 39, Reims t. 2 (Paris 1904).
Catalogue methodique et raisonne des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de la ville et
de l’ Universitè de Gand, par le Baron J. De Saint-Genois (Gand 1849–1852).
Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum 1841–1845
(London 1964, 11850).
(London 1964, 11864).
(London 1965, 11875).
(London 1968, 11882).
Catalogue of Manuscripts in the British Museum. New Series, v . 1, p. 1 The
Arundel Manuscripts (London 1834).
Catalogue of Manuscripts in the British Museum. New Series, v . 1, p. 2 The
Burney Manuscripts (London 1834).
Catalogue of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Beinecke Rare
Book and Manuscripts Library Yale University, v. 1 (New York 1984), v. 3
Marston Manuscripts by B. A. Shailor (New York 1992).
Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections in
the British Museum by G. F. Warner and J. P. Gilson, v. III (Oxford 1921).
Catalogue sommaire des manuscrits de la bibliothèque de Sélestat, ch. 12:
Medicine, sciences naturelles.
Catalogus Bibliothecae Latinae veteris et classicae manuscriptae quae in Regio
Neapolitano Museo Borbonico adservatur descriptus a C. Iannellio (Napoli
1827).
Catalogus codicum Bernensium (bibliotheca Bongarsiana) ed. H. Hagen (Bern
1875).
Catalogus codicum latinorum bibliothecae Laurentianae, t.1 (Firenze 1774).
Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, t. I, p. I (Mün-
chen 1892), p. II (München 1894), t. II, p. I (München 1874), p. III (Mün-
chen 1878), p. IV (München 1881).
Catalogus codicum latinorum classicorum qui in Bibliotheca Urbica W ratisla-
viensi adservantur, comp. a K. Ziegler (Bratislava 1915).
Catalogus codicum mss. bibliothecae Bernensis cur . J. R. Sinner , t. 1 (Bern
1760).
Bibliography 207
Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae pars III t. III, t. IV

(Paris 1744).
Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum, qui in bibliotheca Canonicorum regu-
larium S. Augustini Claustroneobur gi asservantur; auct. H. Pfeif fer, t. 1
(Wien 1922).
Catalogus codicum philologicorum latinorum Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindobo-
nensis von St. Endlicher (Wien 1836).
Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Ca-
nada by S. de Ricci with the assistance of W . J. W ilson, t. 1 (New Y ork
1935), t. 2 (New York 1937).
Codices Bibliothecae Publicae Latini (Lugduni Batavorum 1912).
Cunningham I. C. “Latin classical manuscripts in the National Library of Scot-
land”, Scriptorium 27, n. 1, 1973; 64–90.
Derolez A. Corpus catalogorum Belgii, The medieval Booklists of the Southern
Low Countries. Brussel, 1994–2001.
Die Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel beschr. v. O. v.
Heinemann, Vierte Abt.: Die Gudischen Handschriften, Bd. IX (W olfen-
büttel 1913).
Die Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek Nürnberg, B. IV Die lateinische Mittel-
alterlichen Handschriften bearb. von I. Neske (Wiesbaden 1997).
Die Handschriften der Württember gischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart,
1. Reihe, 2. Band, Codices Poetici et Philologici von W . Irtenkauf und
I. Krekler (Wiesbaden 1981).
Die lateinischen mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek
München, Die Handschriften aus der Folioreihe, zweite Hälfte; be-
schrieben von N. Daniel, G. Schott, P. Zahn (Wiesbaden 1979).
Die lateinischen mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek
München, Die Handschriften aus der Oktavreihe; beschrieben von N. Da-
niel (Wiesbaden 1989).
Die lateinischen Papierhandschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen
beschr. von H. Fischer (Erlangen 1936).
Gameson R. The Manuscripts of Early Norman England c.1066–1 130 (The
British Academy 1999).
Handschriftencensus Rheinland, hsg. von G. Gattermann (Wiesbaden 1993).
Handschriften-Katalog der Königlichen Universitäts-Bibliothek zu Erlangen
bearbeitet von J. C. Irmischer (Frankfurt a. M. und Erlangen 1852).
Inventari dei manoscritti delle biblioteche d’Italia, v. 3, a cura di G. Mazzatinti
(Forlì 1893), v. 11, a cura di G. Mazzatinti e F . Pintor (Forlì 1901) v. 12, a
cura di G. Mazzatinti e F. Pintor (Forlì 1902–1903), v. 88, a cura di G. Garosi
(Firenze 1972).
Inventaris van de Handschriften in de Universiteitsbibliotheck te Gent door Dr.
A. Derolez (Gent 1977).
Katalog der Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Bamberg bearb. von
Dr. Fr. Leitschuh, 1. Band, 2. Abteilung (Bamberg 1895).
La biblioteca Napoletana dei Re d’Aragona di T . de Marinis, (Milano 1947).
Manoscritti datati d ’Italia, v . 2, I manoscritti datati della Biblioteca Riccar-
diana di Firenze, v. 1 a cura di T. De Robertis e R. Miriello (Firenze 1997).
208 Bibliography
Manuscrits Classiques Latins de la Bibliothèque V aticane, t. I (Vaticane-Paris

1975), t. II, pars 1 (Vaticane-Paris 1978), t. II, pars 2 (Vaticane-Paris 1982),
t. III, pars 1 (Vaticane-Paris 1991).
Munk Olsen B. L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1
(Paris 1982), t. 2 (Paris 1985).
Passalaqua M. I codici di Prisciano. Roma, 1978.
Supplement to the Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in
the United States and Canada origin.by C. U. Faye, contin. and edited by
W.H. Bond (New York 1962).
The Western Manuscripts in the Library of T rinity College, Cambridge, a De-
scriptive Catalogue by M. Rhodes James v. III (Cambridge 1902).
Tabulae codicum manu scriptorum praeter graecos et orientales in Bibliotheca
Palatina V indobonensi Asservatorum, ed. Academia Caesarea V indobo-
nensis, v. I (Wien 1864), v. II (Wien 1868), v. III (Wien 1869).
Vatasso e Carusi, codices V aticani Latini. Codices 10301–10700, Roma
1920.
Studies
Adams, J. N. 1982, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, London.

Ahlberg, A. W. 1911, Prolegomena in Sallustium, Göteborg.
Albrecht, M. von 2003,Cicero’s Style. A Synopsis followed by selected analytic
studies, Leiden.
Annibaldis, G. 1977, ‘Invectiva in Ciceronem 4, 7’, Prometheus, 3: 221–224.
Arena, V. 2007, ‘Roman Oratorical Invective’, in: W . Dominik and J. Hall
(eds.), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, Oxford, 149–160.
Badalì, R. 1968, ‘Sui codici dei Paradoxa di Cicerone’, RCCM, 10: 27–58.
Balsdon, J. P. and Grif fin, M. T. 1996, ‘T ullius Cicero Marcus’, in: S. Horn-
blower and A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford,
1558–1560.
Barker-Benfield, B. Ch. 1976, ‘A Ninth-century Manuscript from Fleury: Cato
de senectute cum Macrobio’, in: J. J. G. Alexander and M. .TGibson (eds.),
Medieval learning and Literature, Oxford, 145–165.
Bateson, M. 1898, Catalogue of the Library of Syon Monastery Isleworth ,
Cambridge.
Bauer, B. 1992, ‘Aemulatio’, in: G. Ueding (ed.),Historisches Wörterbuch der
Rhetorik, vol. 1, Darmstadt, 141–187.
Baur, S. 1829, ‘Corrado, Sebastian und Qiunto Mario’, in: J. S. Ersch and. J. G.
Gruber (eds.), Allgemeine Encyclopädie der W issenschaften und Künste ,
vol. 19, Leipzig, 370.
Beard, M. 1993, ‘Looking (harder) for Roman Myth: Dumézil, declamation
and problems of def inition’, in: F. Graf (ed.), Mythos in mythenloser Ge-
sellschaft. Das Paradigma Roms, Stuttgart und Leipzig, 44–64.
Becker, C. 1973, ‘Sallust’, in: ANRW, vol. I, 3, Berlin-New York, 720–754.
Becker, G. 1885, Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, Bonn.
Bibliography 209
Bédier, J. 1928, ‘La T radition manuscrite du ’Lai de l’ombre‘. Réf lexions sur
l’art d’éditer les anciens textes’, Romania, 54: 321–356.
Berry, D. H. and Heath, M. 1997, ‘Oratory and Declamation’, in: S. E. Porter
(ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330
BC–AD 400, Leiden, 393–420.
Bischoff, B. 1979, Paläographie des römischen Altertums und des abendlän-
dischen Mittelalters, Berlin.
Bloomer, W. M. 1997a, Latinity and Literary Society at Rome , Philadelphia.
Bloomer, W. M. 1997b, ‘Schooling in Persona: Imagination and Subordination
in Roman Education’, ClAnt, 16: 57–78.
Boissier, G. 1906, Tacitus and other Roman studies, London.
Bolaffi, E. 1949, Sallustio e la sua fortuna nei secoli, Roma.
Bonner, S.F. 1969, Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire
(1. edn. 1949), Liverpool.
Bonner, S.F. 1977, Education in Ancient Rome: Fr om the elder Cato to the
younger Pliny, London.
Bornecque, H. 1902, Les déclamations et les déclamateurs d’après Sénèque le
Père, Lille.
Büchner, K. 1967, Sallustinterpretationen; in Auseinandersetzung mit dem Sal-
lustbuch von Ronald Syme, Stuttgart.
Büchner, K. 1982, Sallust (2. edn., 1.edn. 1960), Heidelberg.
Canfora, L. 1984, ‘Altri riferimenti ai poemi ciceroniani nell’“Invectiva in
Ciceronem”’, Ciceroniana, 5: 101–109.
Cappelli, A. 1985,Dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane (6. edn., 1.edn.:
1912), Milano.
Chiesa, P. 2002, Elementi di critica testuale, Bologna.
Chouet, M. 1950, Les Lettres de Salluste à César, Paris.
Cizek, A. N. 1994, Imitatio et tractatio. Die literarisch-r hetorischen Grund-
lagen der Nachahmung in Antike und Mittelalter, Tübingen.
Clark, D. L. 1949, ‘Some Values of Roman Declamatio: the Controversia as a
School Exercise in Rhetoric’, QJS, 35: 280–283.
Clark, D. L. 1950, ‘The Place of Rhetoric in Liberal Education’, QJS, 36:
291–299.
Clark, D.L. 1951, ‘Imitation: Theory and Practice in Roman Rhetoric’, QJS,
37: 11–22.
Clark, D.L. 1957, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education, New York.
Clark, M. L. 1971, Higher Education in the Ancient World, London.
Clark, M. L. 1951, ‘The thesis in the Roman rhetorical schools of the republic’,
CQ, 45: 159–166.
Clark, M. L. 1996, Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey (1.edn. 1953), Lon-
don.
Clift, E. H. 1945, Latin Pseudepigrapha. A Study in Literary Attributions, Bal-
timore.
Conte, G. B. 1986,The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and Poetic Memory in Vir-
gil and Other Latin Poets, trans. C. Segal, New York.
Conte, G. B. 1994, Latin Literature. A History, trans. J. B. Solodow, Baltimore
and London.
210 Bibliography
Conte, G. B. and Most, G. W . 1996, ‘Imitatio’, in: S. Hornblower and

A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford, 749.
Copinger, W. A. 1895–1902, Supplement to Hain’s Repertorium Bibliographi-
cum or Collections Towards a New Edition of that Work, London.
Corbeill, A. 1996, Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman
Republic, Princeton.
Corbeill, A. 2001, ‘Education in the Roman Republic: creating traditions’, in:
Y. L. Too (ed.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Leiden-Boston,
261–287.
Corbeill, A. 2002, ‘Ciceronian Invective’, in: J. M. May (ed.), Brill’s Com-
panion to Cicero. Oratory and Rhetoric, 197–217.
Corbeill, A. 2007, ‘Rhetorical Education and Social Reproduction in the Re-
public and Early Empire’, in: W. Dominik and J. Hall (eds.),A Companiion
to Roman Rhetoric, Malden, MA-Oxford-Carlton, Victoria, 69–82.
Corrado, S. 1754, Quaestura: partes duae, quarum altera de Ciceronis vita et
libris, item de ceteris Cicer onibus agit; altera Cicer onis libros permultis
locis emendat (4. edn.), Sax. Lipsiae.
Craig, Ch. 2004, ‘Audience Expectations, Invective, and Proof ’, in: J. Powell
and J. Paterson (eds.), Cicero the Advocate, Oxford, 187–213.
Dain, A. 1975, Les manuscrits (1.edn. 1949), Paris.
Davies, M. 1995, Aldus Manutius: printer and publisher of Renaissance V e-
nice, London.
De Rentiis, D. 1998, ‘Imitatio’, in: G. Ueding (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch
der Rhetorik, vol. 4, Darmstadt, 235–303.
Delz, J. 1997, ‘Textkritik und Editionstechnik’, in: F. Graf (ed.), Einleitung in
die lateinische Philologie, Stuttgart und Leipzig, 51–73.
Douglas, A. E. 1972, ‘Hellenistic Rhetoric and Roman Oratory’, in: D. Daiches
and A. Thorbly (eds.),Literature and Western Civilization, London, 341–354.
Dunkle, J. P. 1967, ‘The Greek T yrant and Roman Political Invective of the
Late Republic’, TAPA, 98: 151–171.
Eisenhut, W. 1965, ‘Textkritische Bemerkungen zur Invectiva in Ciceronem’,
Hermes, 93: 467–477.
Emonds, H. 1941, Zweite Auflage im Altertum: Kultur geschichtliche Studien
zur Überlieferung der antiken Literatur, Leipzig.
Eussner, A. 1879, ‘Bericht über die neueste Literatur zu den römischen Histo-
riker (ausser T acitus) bis zum Schlüsse des Jahres 1877’, in: C. Bursian
(ed.), Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der classischen Alterthumswis-
senschaft: Fünfter Jahrgang, 1877, Berlin, 105–224.
Ewbank, W.W. 1933, The Poems of Cicero, London.
Fairweather, J. 1981, Seneca the Elder, Cambridge.
Fairweather, J. 1984, ‘The Elder Seneca and Declamation’, in: ANRW, vol. II,
32, 1, 514–556.
Fantham, E. 1978, ‘Imitation and Decline: Rhetorical Theory and Practice in
the First Century after Christ’, CPh, 73: 101–117.
Fantham, E. 1997, ‘The contexts and occasions of Roman public rhetoric’, in:
W. Dominik (ed.), Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literatur e,
London-New York, 111–128.
Bibliography 211
Fantham, E. 2004, The Roman World of Cicero’s ‘De Oratore’, Oxford.

Farber, W. 1934, Sallust gegen Cicero. Eine sprachliche Untersuchung, Diss.,
Tübingen.
François, G. 1963, ‘Declamatio et disputatio’, AC, 32: 513–540.
Funaioli, G. 1920, ‘C. Sallustius Crispus’, in: RE, vol. I, A, 2, 1913–1955.
Funaioli, G. 1948, Studi di Letteratura Antica. Spiriti e forme, igure
f e problemi
delle letterature classiche, vol. II, 1, Bologna.
Gabba, E. 1957, ‘Note sulla polemica anticiceroniana di Asinio Pollione’,RSI,
69: 317–339.
Gagnér, A. 1936, Florilegium Gallicum. Untersuchungen und T exte zur Ge-
schichte der mittellateinischen Florilegienliteratur, Lund.
Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke 1934, vol. 6, Leipzig.
Goodyear, F. R .D. 1982, ‘Sallust’, in: E. J. Kenney and W . V. Clausen (eds.),
The Cambridge History of Classical Literatur e, vol. 2, Latin Literature,
Cambridge, 268–280.
Grant, M.A. and Fiske, G.C. 1924, ‘Cicero’ s ‘Orator ’ and Horace’ s ‘Ars
poetica’’, HSPh, 35: 1–74.
Gunderson, E. 2003, Declamation, Paternity, and Roman Identity . Authority
and the Rhetorical Self, Cambridge.
Gwynn, A. 1964, Roman Education from Cicero to Quintilian (1. edn. 1926),
New York.
Hafner, A. 1989, Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Rhetorik
ad Herennium, Bern.
Hain, L. 1826–1891, Repertorium bibliographicum, in quo libri omnes ab arte
typographica inventa usque ad annum MD, Stuttgartiae et Tubingae.
Hands, A.R. 1959, ‘Sallust and Dissimulatio’, JRS, 49: 56–60.
Harrison, J.A. 1978, Roman Education, London.
Havet, L. 1911, Manuel de critique verbale appliquée aux textes latins , Paris.
Hejnic, J. 1956, ‘Clodius auctor’, RhM, 99: 255–277.
Herzog, CH. G. 1833, Salustii orationis invectivae in M. T ullium Ciceronem
denuo castigatae et emendatae specimen, Gera.
Hidber, T. 1996, Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass: die
Praefatio zu ‘De oratoribus veteribus’, Stuttgart und Leipzig.
Höhne, E. 1927, Die Geschichte des Sallusttextes im Altertum gezeigt an den
beiden Monographien, Diss., München.
Housman, A.E. 1989, ‘The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism’, in: C.
Ricks (ed.), Collected Poems and Selected Prose, London, 325–339.
Imber, M. 2001, ‘Practised Speech: Oral and W ritten Conventions in Roman
Declamation’, in: J. Watson (ed.), Speaking volumes: orality and literacy
in the Greek and Roman world, Leiden-Boston-Köln.
Indice generale degli incunaboli delle biblioteche d’ Italia (IGI) 1972, Roma.
Jachmann, G. 1950, ‘Die Invektive gegen Cicero’,Miscellanea Academica Be-
rolinensia, II, 1: 235–275.
Jenkinson, E.M. 1955, ‘Further Studies in the Curriculum of the Roman
Schools of Rhetoric in the Republican Period’, SO, 31: 122–130.
Jordan, H. 1876, ‘Die Invektiven des Sallust und Cicero’, Hermes, 11 :
305–331.
212 Bibliography
Kaeppeli, T. 1962, Inventari di libri di San Domenico di Perugia (1430–80) ,

Roma.
Kaster, R.A. 1998, ‘Becoming CICERO’, in: P. Knox and C. Foss (eds.), Style
and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen, Stuttgart and Leipzig,
248–263.
Kaster, R.A. 2001, ‘Controlling Reason: Declamation in Rhetorical Education
in Rome’, in: Y . L. T oo (ed.), Education in Gr eek and Roman Antiquity ,
Leiden-Boston, 317–337.
Kennedy, G.A. 1972,The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman W orld: 300 BC–AD 300,
Princeton.
Kennedy, G.A. 1994, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, Princeton.
Kennedy, G.A. 1999, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular T radi-
tion from Ancient to Modern Times (2. edn.), Chapel Hill.
Kirby, J.T. 1997, ‘Ciceronian Rhetoric: Theory and Practice’, in: W . J. Dominik
(ed.), Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature, London-New
York, 13–31.
Koller, H. 1954, Die Mimesis in der Antike. Nachahmung, Darstellung, Aus-
druck, Bern.
Koster, S. 1980, Die Invektive in der griechischen und römischen Literatur ,
Meisenheim am Glan.
Krebs, J. Ph. 1905–1907, Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache (Auf l. 7,
genau durchgesehene und vielfach umgearb. von J.H. Schmalz. edn.).
Kristeller, P. O., Iter Italicum: Accedunt Alia Itinera. On CD-ROM. A Database
of Uncatalogued or Incompletely Catalogued Humanistic Manuscripts of
the Renaissance in Italian and other Libraries , consultant ed. L. Floridi,
Leiden.
Kroll, W. 1927, ‘Die Sprache des Sallust’, Glotta, 15: 280–304.
Kurfess, A. 1912, ‘De invectivis quae tamquam Sallustii et Ciceronis traditae
sunt’, Mnemosyne, 40: 364–380.
Kurfess, A. 1913a, De Sallustii in Cicer onem et invicem invectivis , Diss.,
Berlin.
Kurfess, A. 1913b, ‘Ad Ciceronis in Sallustium quae fertur invectivam’, Mne-
mosyne, 41: 23–25.
Kurfess, A. 1913c, ‘Varia III: Ad Sallustii in Ciceronem quae fertur invectivam.
Varia IV : De Fuf ii Caleni in Ciceronem oratione’, Mnemosyne, 41:
145–152.
Kurfess, A. 1914a, ‘V aria VIII: Ad Ps.-Cic. in Sall. inv .’, Mnemosyne, 42:
401–403.
Kurfess, A. 1914b, ‘Invektiven der Kaiserzeit. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Invektive’, Sokrates. Zeitschrift für Gymnasialwesen, 68: 512–524.
Kurfess, A. 1915a, ‘Die Anfänge der Invektive in Rom’, Jahresberichte des
Philologischen Vereins zu Berlin, 103–112.
Kurfess, A. 1915b, Die Invektivenpoesie der sullanisch-cäsarischen, augus-
teischen und nachaugusteischen Zeit: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der In-
vektive, Wohlau.
Kurfess, A. 1916, ‘Invektivenpoesie des römischen Altertums’, Jahresberichte
des Philologischen Vereins zu Berlin, 184–202.
Bibliography 213
Kurfess, A. 1922, ‘Die Invektive gegen Cicero: ein echtes Stück Sallusts’,
Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins zu Berlin, 66–72.
Kurfess, A. 1954, ‘Die Invektive gegen Cicero’, Aevum, 38: 230–238.
Latte, K. 1962, Sallust (2. edn., 1. edn. 1935), Darmstadt.
Lausberg, H. 1998, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. A Foundation for Literary
Study. (Germ. orig. 1.edn.1960 München), Leiden-Boston-Köln.
Lavery, G.B. 1973, ‘O Romule Arpinas’, CB, 49: 86–89.
Leeman, A. D. 1965,A Systematical Bibliography of Sallust (1879–1964), Leiden.
Lehman-Haupt, C.F . 1923, ‘Zu Sallusts Invektive gegen Cicero’, Klio, 19:
104–106.
Levy, H. L. 1946, ‘Claudian’s ‘In Rufinum’ and the rhetorical «’, TAPA,
77: 57–65.
Lipsius, J. 1637, Opera omnia, postremum ab ipso aucta et r ecensita, vol. 1,
Antwerpen.
Lipsius, J. 1726, Orationes octo, Jena.
Maas, P. 1960, Textkritik (4. edn., 1.edn. 1927), Leipzig.
Martin, J. 1974, Antike Rhetorik. Technik und Methode, München.
Massa, G. 2006, ‘Sallustio contro Cicerone? I falsi d’autore e la polemica anti-
ciceroniana di Asinio Pollione’, Athenaeum, 94: 415–466.
Maurenbrecher, B. 1899, ‘Hans Wirz, Sallustius in Ciceronem’, Berliner Phil-
ologische Wochenschrift, 19: 298–303.
McKeon, R. 1936, ‘Literary Criticism and the Concept of Imitation in An-
tiquity’, Modern Philology, 34: 1–35.
Merrill, N. W. 1975, Cicero and Early Roman Invective, Diss., Cincinnati.
Meyer, E. 1922, Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus (3. edn.),
Stuttgart-Berlin.
Morgan, T. 1998, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman W orlds,
Cambridge.
Morstein-Marx, R. 2004, Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman
Republic, Cambridge.
Mout, N. (ed.) 1998, Die Kultur des Humanismus: Reden, Briefe, T raktate,
Gespräche von Petrarca bis Kepler, München.
Murphy, J. J. 1998, ‘The key role of habit in Roman rhetoric and education, as
described by Quintilian’, in: T. Albaladejo, E. D. Río, and J. A. Caballero
(eds.), Quintiliano: Historia y Actualidad de la Retórica (1), Logroño,
141–150.
Nisbet, R. G. M. 1958, ‘The Invectiva in Ciceronem and Epistula Secunda of
Pseudo-Sallust’, JRS, 48: 30–32.
Nisbet, R. G. M. 1961, Cicero, ‘In L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio’ (=1989),
Oxford.
Novokhatko, A. A. 2002, ‘Eine Liste der Handschriften der im Sallust- und
Cicerocorpus überlieferten Invektiven (Sallustii in Ciceronem et invicem
Invectivae)’, Eikasmos, 13: 273–286.
Oertel, F. 1951, ‘Sallusts Invektive gegen Cicero’, RhM, 94: 46–68.
Olivieri Sangiacomo, L. 1954, Sallustio, Firenze.
Opelt, I. 1965, Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Er-
scheinungen. Eine Typologie, Heidelberg.
214 Bibliography
Paanen, U. 1972, Sallust’s Politico-Social Terminology. It’s Use and Biographi-

cal Significance, Helsinki.
Paanen, U. 1975, ‘Die Echtheit der ‘pseudosallustischen’ Schriften’, Archivum
Historicum, 68: 22–68.
Pabón, J. M. 1933, ‘Sobre la tradición del texto de Salustio’, Emerita, 1:
18–101.
Pabón, J. M. 1934, ‘Sobre la tradición del texto de Salustio’, Emerita, 2: 1–14.
Paladini, V. 1948, Sallustio, Milano.
Paratore, E. 1950, ‘Rassegna di studi sallustiani’, ASNP, 19: 155–175.
Parks, E.P. 1945, The Roman Rhetorical Schools as a Pr eparation for the
Courts underthe Early Empire, Baltimore.
Parzinger, P. 1910, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Entwicklung des Cicer onischen
Stils, Diss., Erlangen.
Pasoli, E. 1965, ‘L’invectiva in Ciceronem e l’evoluzione linguistica di Sallus-
tio’, Helicon, 5: 242–247.
Pasoli, E. 1974, Le Historiae e le opere minori di Sallustio (1.edn. 1965), Bo-
logna.
Pasquali, G. 1971, Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (1.edn. 1934),
Firenze.
Paterson, J. 1985, ‘Politics in the Late Republic’, in: T . P. W iseman (ed.),
Roman Political Life 90 B.C.–A.D. 69, Exeter, 21–43.
Peiser, G. 1903, De invectivis, quae Sallustii et Cicer onis nominibus feruntur,
Posen.
Pelling, C. B. R. 1996, ‘Sallust’, in: S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.),
The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford, 1348–1349.
Perl, G. 1959, ‘Probleme der Sallust-Überlieferung’, F&F, 33: 56–60.
Powell, J. G. F. 2007, ‘Invective and the Orator: Ciceronian Theory and Prac-
tice’, in: J. Booth (ed.), Cicero on the Attack; Invective in the orations and
beyond, Swansea, 1–23.
Quentin, H. 1926, Essais de Critique Textuelle (Ecdotique), Paris.
Rawson, E. 1976, ‘Homo Novus Arpinas ex M. Crassi Familia, [Sallust], Cic.
3’, LCM, 1: 93–95.
Rawson, E. 1985, Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic, London.
Reiff, A. 1959, Interpretatio, imitatio, aemulatio: Begriff und Vorstellung liter-
arischer Abhängigkeit bei den Römern, Diss., Köln.
Reitzenstein, R. 1898, ‘Pseudo-Sallusts Invektive gegen Cicero’, Hermes, 33:
87–101.
Renouard, A. A. 1834, Annales de l’imprimerie des Aldes, ou histoire des trois
Manuce et de leurs éditions (3. edn.), Paris.
Renouard, Ph. 1908, Bibliographie des impressions et des oeuvres de Josse Ba-
dius Ascensius: imprimeur et humaniste, 1462–1535, Paris.
Reynolds, L. D. (ed.) 1983, Texts and transmission: a survey of the Latin clas-
sics, Oxford.
Reynolds, L. D. and Wilson, N.G. 1991, Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the
Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (3. edn.), Oxford.
Russell, D. A. 1979, ‘De imitatione’, in: D. West and T. Woodman (eds.), Cre-
ative Imitation and Latin Literature, Cambridge, 1–16.
Bibliography 215
Russell, D. A. 1983, Greek Declamation, Cambridge.

Ryan, F. X. 1997, ‘The Quaestor † Canini Salustius’, RhM, 140: 281–285.
Schelle, J. 1967, ‘Zu Sallust, Invektive gegen Cicero2, 3’, RhM, 110: 193–194.
Schindel, U. 1980a, ‘Die Rezeption Sallusts in Deutschland in Humanismus
und Aufklärung’, in: R. Toellner (ed.), Aufklärung und Humanismus, Hei-
delberg, 89–106.
Schindel, U. 1980b, Die Invektive gegen Cicero, Göttingen.
Schmid, W. 1963, ‘Die Komposition der Invektive gegen Cicero’, Hermes, 91:
159–178.
Schmid, W. 1993, Frühschriften Sallusts im Horizont des Gesamtwerks, Neust-
adt.
Schmidt, P. L. 1974, Die Überlieferung von Ciceros Schrift ‘De legibus’ in Mit-
telalter und Renaissance, München.
Schmidt, P. L. 2001, ‘Sallustius’, in: DNP, vol. 10, 1254–1258.
Schöll, F. 1902, ‘Zu Pseudo-Sallusts Invectiva’, RhM, 57: 159–163.
Schroeder, J. 1977, Bibliothek und Schule der Abtei Echternach um die Jahr-
tausendwende, Luxembourg.
Schwartz, ED. 1898, ‘Nachschrift zu Reitzenstein’, Hermes, 33: 101–108.
Seel, O. 1961, Die Invektive gegen Cicero (1.edn. Leipzig 1943), Aalen.
Seel, O. 1966, Sallusts Briefe und die pseudosallustische Invektive, Nürnberg.
Sicco, Polenton 1477, ‘Super decem orationes Ciceronis, super quattuor invec-
tivas in Catilinam, super invectivas inter Sallustium et Ciceronem. Patavii
ex aedibus solitae habitationis 1413’, in: H. Squarzaf icus (ed.), Asconius
Pedianus: Commentarii in orationes Ciceronis, Venezia.
Sicconis Polentoni Scriptorum illustrium Latinae linguae libri XVIII 1928,
Rome.
Smalley, B. 1971, ‘Sallust in the Middle Ages’, in: R. R. Bolgar (ed.),Classical
Influences on European Culture A.D. 500–1500, Cambridge, 165–175.
Speyer, W. 1971, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen
Altertum. Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung, München.
Stählin, O. 1914, Editionstechnik: Ratschläge für die Anlage textkritischer
Ausgaben (2. edn.), Leipzig-Berlin.
Stroh, W. 2003, ‘Declamatio’, in: B.-J. Schröder and J.-P. Schröder (eds.), Stu-
dium declamatorium: Untersuchungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkr eden
von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit, München, 5–34.
Süss, W . 1910, Ethos: Studien zur älter en griechischen Rhetorik (= 1975,
Aalen), Leipzig.
Sussman, L.A. 1972, ‘The Elder Seneca’s Discussion of the Decline of Roman
Eloquence’, CSCA, 5: 195–210.
Sussman, L.A. 1978, The Elder Seneca (Mnemosyne suppl. 51), Leiden.
Sussman, L.A. 1984, ‘A Critical Bibliography on The Elder Seneca and Decla-
mation Since 1900’, in: ANRW, vol. II, 32, 1, 557–577.
Syme, R. 1958, ‘Pseudo-Sallust’, MH, 15: 46–55.
Syme, R. 1964, Sallust, Berkeley-Los Angeles.
The illustrated incunabula short-title catalogue on CD-ROM (IISTC) , L. Hel-
linga and M. Davies (eds.), 2.edn., Reading.
Timpanaro, S. 1963, La genesi del metodo del Lachmann, Firenze.
216 Bibliography
Ullman, B. L. 1955, Studies in the Italian Renaissance, Roma.

Victorius, P. 1553, Variarum Lectionum Libri XXV, Florence.
Voet, L. 1980–1983, The Plantin Pr ess (1555–1589): a bibliography of the
works printed and published by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp and
Leiden, Amsterdam.
Volkmann, R. 1963, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer: in systematischer
Übersicht (=2. edn. Leipzig 1885), Hildesheim.
Vretska, K. 1957, ‘Zur Methodik der Echtheitskritik (Epistulae ad Caesarem
senem)’, WS, 70: 306–321.
Vretska, K. 1961, C. Sallustius Crispus: Invektive und Episteln. Einleitung.
Text und Übersetzung. Kommentar, Heidelberg.
Watson, L. C. 1996, ‘Invective’, in: S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.),
The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford, 762.
West, M. 1973, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique, Stuttgart.
Wilkins, A. S. 1905, Roman Education, Cambridge.
Willems, A. 1880, Les Elzevier: histoire et annales typographiques, Bruxelles.
Willis, J. 1972, Latin Textual Criticism, Urbana.
Winterbottom, M. 1982, ‘Cicero and the Silver Age’, Éloquence et rhétorique
chez Cicéron, Geneva, 235–266.
Winterbottom, M. 1996, ‘Declamation’, in: S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth
(eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford, 436–437.
Wirtz, R. 1910, Beiträge zur Catilinarischen V erschwörung, Diss. Bonn,
Aachen.
Wirz, H. 1898, ‘Sallustius in Ciceronem, ein klassisches Stück Anticicero’,
Festgaben zu Ehr en Max Büdinger ’s von seinen Fr eunden und Schülern ,
Innsbruck, 91–116.
Zetzel, J. E. G. 1981, Latin textual criticism in antiquity, Salem, NH.
Zielinski, Th. 1912, Cicero im Wandel der Jahrhunderte (3. edn.), Leipzig-Ber-
lin.
Zimmermann, R. 1929, Der Sallusttext im Altertum, München.
Egunov, A. N. 1997, ‘ Atribuciѕ i ateteza v klassiљesko“ filologii’,
in: A. K. Гavrilov (ed.), Drevni“ mir i m«. Klassiљeskoe nasledie v
Evrope i Rossii, St-Petersburg, 83–138.
Novohatцko, A. A. 2004, ‘Invektiv« Sallїstiѕ. Vstupitelцnaѕ statцѕ,
izdanie latinskogo teksta, perevod i kommentarii’, Vestnik drevnej
istorii (=Journal of Ancient History), 249: 240–252; 250: 233–250.
217
Index rerum
aemulatio, « 12 invective 12 ff. et passim
attribution (of authorship) 1 ff., 15f., loci (
) of the invective 13 f.,
25, 111 ff., 118 ff., 124, 127, 129, 19 ff.
133, 135 ff. narratio, « 14, 16, 20, 22
controversia 6 ff., 11, 26, 123, 145, peroratio,
« 16, 25
declamatio, 3 ff., 9, 15 f., 26, prosopopoeia 6
116 f., 121, 125, 132 ff., 143 rhetoric 4 ff. et passim
dittography 33 ff., 92, 138 rhetorical schools 3 ff., 8 ff.,
education in Greece 3 ff. 19 ff., 113, 127 ff.
in Rome 3 ff., 8 ff., 12 f., 16, 22, rhetorical exercises 3 ff., 6 ff.,
25 15 ff., 111 f., 127 ff.
exordium,
16, 19, 21 f. Rhetorica ad Herennium 5, 11, 13,
imitatio, « 1, 3, 6, 10 ff., 22, 22, 118
25, 32, 114, 124 f., 128, 151, stemma 27 ff., 56, 64, 90, 99, 105,
156 f., 159, 177, 181 110, 145 ff.
incunabula 51, 111, 129ff., 172, 193ff. suasoria 6, 15
interpolation 30, 32 f., 35 ff., 40 f., vituperatio, « 8, 13, 25
43 f., 46, 49 ff., 57 ff., 64 ff., 69,
71, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 88, 90,
93 ff., 101, 105, 132 ff., 140, 144
218 Index nominum
Index nominum
Aeschines 6, 22 Carrion, Louis (Ludovicus Carrio)
Africa 18, 24, 101, 128, 184 f. (1547–1595) 118, 134, 138 f.,
(Sall. 19) 141, 143 f.
Aldus Manutius the Elder (ca. Catilina, Lucius Sergius 16, 111, 116,
1449–1515) 30, 38, 44, 46f., 51, 123, 130, 134, 143, 147, 154 ff.
53, 59, 64, 65, 71, 74, 79 f., 84, Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and pseudo-
101, 104 f., 107, 115, 118, 120, Cicero Cic. 1 bis, 2, 3, 5, 6 et
130 ff., 144, 147, 150, 152, 154, passim
158, 162, 164, 166, 170, 180, Claudius, Appius Caecus 182 f.
182 (Sall. 16)
Aldus Manutius the Younger Claudius, Appius Pulcher 18, 183
(1547–1597) 35, 63, 67, 87, 92, Cledonius 12
100, 136 f., 147 f., 184 Clodius, Pulcher Publius 17, 115,
Ammianus Marcellinus 12 124, 127, 175
Ampelius, Lucius 123 Corrado, Sebastiano (Corradus) 31,
Aphthonius, Aelius Festus 13 f. 116 ff., 125
Aristotle 10, 13 Crassus Lucius Licinius 25, 30 f.,
Arpinum 20, 31, 63, 111, 156 f., 156 f. (Cic. 4)
160 f. (Cic. 4, 7) Crassus Marcus Licinius 17, 31, 74,
Asconius Pedianus 16, 18, 114 128, 153, 157
Asinius Pollio 16, 127 Crassus Publius Licinius 19, 44, 60,
Bade, Josse (Jodocus Badius Ascen- 66, 71, 73 f., 101, 152 f., 180 f.,
sius) (1462–1535) 115, 121, 186 f. (Cic. 2; Sall. 14, 20)
132 ff., 137, 141, 143 Crinito, Pietro (Crinitus, or Pietro Del
Baiter, Johann Georg Riccio Baldi) (1475–1507) 115,
(1801–1877) 99, 133, 144 f., 120, 143 f.
154, 184 Crispinus, Daniel 44, 46, 64, 66 f.,
Berger, Johann Wilhelm von (Guilel- 101, 120 f., 132, 141 f., 144, 158
mus) (*1672–1751) 137, 148 Demetrius of Phalerum 6
Bibulus, Marcus Calpurnius 162 f., Didius (unknown) 112
176 f. (Cic. 7; Sall. 12) Dio Cassius 18, 124f., 151, 153, 155,
Boxhorn, Marcus Zuerius van 157, 159, 163
(1612–1653) (Marcus Zuerius Diomedes 12, 112, 157, 188 f.
Boxhornii) 140 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 11
Burette, Théodose 123 Du Bois, François (Franciscus Syl-
Burnouf, Jean Louis 122 vius Ambiani) (1581–1648)
Caesar, Caius Iulius 17 f., 20, 24, 79, 115 f.
88, 113 f., 118 ff., 126 ff., 134, Dyrrhachium 47, 70, 74, 80, 85, 89,
143, 146, 162 f., 176 f., 186 ff. 93, 98, 103, 108, 160 f. (Cic. 7)
(Cic. 7; Sall. 12, 19 bis, 20) Elzevir (House of Elzevir) 120, 142
Calenus, Quintus Fufius 124 f. Florus 123, 143
Index nominum 219
Gallus, Lucius Plotius 4, 7 Metelli Caecilii 22, 62, 73, 136,

Glarean, Heinrich (1488–1563) 31, 168 f., 176 (Sall. 4)
34, 44, 49, 52, 116, 119, 121, 135, Milo, Titus Annius 16 ff., 125, 185
138, 139, 141, 143 f., 147, 156, Minerva 20, 111, 160 ff. (Cic. 7)
182 Nigidius, Publius Figulus 71, 180 f.
Gronovius, Johann Friedrich (Sall. 14)
(1611–1671) 141 Orelli, Johann Caspar von
Grosser, Samuel (1664–1736) 120 (1787–1849) 133, 137, 144 f.
Gruter, Jan (1560–1627) 34, 38, 44, Pareus, John Philipp (Jean-Philippe
46, 49, 51, 59, 63ff., 71, 73, 79f., Wängler) (1576–1648) 119
84, 88, 92, 94, 100 f., 105, 107, Paulus Manutius (1512–1574) 136
119 f., 123, 130, 132ff., 150, 152, Pauli Aemilii 136, 160f,, 168 (Cic. 7)
154, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, Piso, Lucius Calpurnius Caesonius
168, 170, 180, 182, 190 (90) 18, 124, 126 ff., 183
Halm, Karl Felix (1809–1882) 133, Piso M. Pupius Frugi (10) 19, 152f.,
144 ff., 154 f. 156 (Cic. 2)
Havercamp, Siegbert Piso L. Calpurnius Frugi (96) 182 f.
(1684–1742) 143 (Sall. 16)
Isocrates 10 f. Plantin, Christophe
Jordan, Heinrich 27, 30 ff., 35, 58, (c.1520–1589) 118, 136, 139 f.
67, 71, 74, 87, 121, 123 f., 130, Plato 10
133, 142, 145 ff., 156, 166, 168, Pompeii (villa Pompeiana) 19, 67,
170, 180, 184, 186, 188 154 ff. (Cic. 3, 4)
Jupiter (Iuppiter) 20, 89, 111, 160 f. Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius Mag-
(Cic. 7) nus) 17, 161
Juvenal, Decimus Iunius 111, 157, Pomponio Leto (Pomponius Laetus
161 Julius) (1428–1498) 131 f., 134
Kortte, Gottlieb (Cortius, or Corte) Popma, Cyprian (1550–1582) 118,
(1698–1730) 33, 35, 64, 108, 121, 138 f., 141, 143 f.
121 ff., 135, 137, 142 ff., 170, Porcian law (lex Porcia) 158 f.
186 (Cic. 5)
Kritz, Friedrich 123 Plautian law (lex Plautia) 80, 85, 95,
Kurfess, Alfons 27, 30 ff., 41 f., 50, 154 f. (Cic. 3)
53, 68 f., 71, 75, 77 f., 88, 91, 94, Putsch, Helias (1580–1606) 119 f.,
108, 112, 125, 127, 145 ff., 139, 141
154 ff., 159 ff., 163, 166, 170, Quintilian, Marcus Fabius 1, 4, 6 ff.,
172, 180 f.,184 11, 13, 16, 25, 111 f., 116 ff., 122,
Latro, Marcus Porcius 116 f., 130, 126, 151, 157, 159, 161, 189
132 ff., 142 f. Reynolds, Leighton Durham
Leclerk Jean (Iohannes Clericus) (1930–1999) 1, 27, 29 ff., 40 ff.,
(1657–1736) 121, 127, 143 f. 46, 49, 53f., 56f., 62, 65, 67f., 71,
Lipsius, Justus (Joost Lips or Josse 74 ff., 82, 90ff., 94, 99, 105, 108,
Lips) (1547–1606) 59, 73, 76 f., 110, 128, 130, 133ff., 142, 145f.,
94, 97, 108, 116, 118 f., 138 ff., 150, 154, 156, 158, 160, 166, 168,
166 f. 170, 172, 174, 180, 183 f., 187
Lucretius 19 Rivius, Johannes (1500–1553) 118,
Lycurgus 20, 113 f. 144
220 Index nominum
Romulus 20, 70, 111, 160 f. (Cic. 7) Suetonius 4, 6 ff., 17, 181
Rufinus, Tyrannius (Rufinus Aqui- Sulla, Lucius Cornelius 20, 80, 88,
leiensis) 12 93, 106, 160 ff. (Cic. 6)
Rutilius Lupus, Publius 20, 113 f., Terentia (Cicero’s wife) 19, 97, 103,
157 108, 154 f. (Cic. 3)
Sallust (Caius Crispus Sallustius), Textor, Franciscus Jammetius 115
and pseudo-Sallust Sall. 1, 2, 4 Theophrastus 13
bis, 6, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22et Thysius, Anthony
passim (1603–1665) 120 f., 141, 143
Saumaise, Claude (Claudius Salma- Tibur (Tivoli) 24, 35, 64, 108, 142,
sius) (1588–1653) 120, 140 186 f. (Sall. 19)
Scipio, Publius Cornelius Africa- Tusculum (villa Tusculana) 19, 34,
nus 19, 88, 152 f. (Cic. 1) 82, 86, 154 ff., 187 (Cic. 3, 4)
Scipiones Cornelii 22, 61, 93, 160f., Vatinius, Publius 17, 34, 45, 47, 71,
168 f.(Cic. 7; Sall. 4) 73, 154, 160, 176 f. (Cic. 7,
Seneca the Elder 4 f., 7ff., 11, 15, 19, Sall. 12)
117, 124, 151, 157, 161, 167 Vettori, Pietro (Petrus Victorius)
Seneca the Younger 11, 187 (1499–1584) 116, 118 f.
Servius (Maurus Servius Honor- Vossius, Gerhard Johann
atus) 112, 153, 183 (1577–1649) 116, 120, 143
Sicco Polenton (1375–1447) 114 Wasse, Joseph 121, 141
Index nominum 221
Index vocabulorum potiorum quae in apparatu

critico commemorantur
In Ciceronem domum emissem 57, 66, 76, 186

(Sall. 20)
aliquos 88, 144, 146, 154 (Cic. 3) eius 35, 99, 186 (Sall. 20)
audiendo 33 f., 150 (Cic. 1) et 148, 184 (Sall. 17)
calumniae 147, 154 (Cic. 3) et 34, 54, 188 (Sall. 21)
delibuta 30, 47, 53, 74, 78, 104, 152 ecquod 34, 43, 48, 52, 134, 182
(Cic. 2) (Sall. 16)
etiamne 35, 37, 44, 57, 65, 87, 94, his 35, 39, 44, 83, 94, 99, 110, 168
158 (Cic. 6) (Sall. 4)
fecisti ancillaris 147, 160 (Cic. 7) historiis 46, 62, 84, 148, 172
habites 30, 65, 101, 152 (Cic. 2) (Sall. 7)
his 48, 63, 67, 87 f., 92, 100, 137, homines 35, 61, 137, 148, 184
147, 158 (Cic. 6) (Sall. 18)
insequeris 33, 59, 71, 160 (Cic. 7) idem 33, 45, 59, 68, 87, 90, 188
L. Crassi 30 f., 108, 147, 156 (Cic. 4) (Sall. 21)
parasti 30, 74, 130, 147, 156 (Cic. 4) illis 38, 132, 139, 168 (Sall. 4)
praedae 30, 97, 102, 135, 150 (Cic. 1) in 33, 68, 75, 97, 109, 176
quo auctore 32 f., 160 (Cic. 7) (Sall. 11)
removetur a vero 32, 60, 156 (Cic. 4) luculentus 73, 76, 77, 97, 108, 138f.,
Romam 147, 156 (Cic. 5) 147 f., 166 (Sall. 3)
ubiubi 18, 41, 146 f., 150 (Cic. 1) nihil in eo non 37, 42, 55, 184
unam 33, 156 (Cic. 4) (Sall. 17)
nobis 62, 105, 148, 168 (Sall. 4)
patrem 33, 71, 90, 178 (Sall. 13)
In Sallustium per 34, 98, 184 (Sall. 17)
per te 34, 148, 168 (Sall. 5)
adversarius 76, 100, 176 (Sall. 11) petulantissime consectari 33, 40, 45,
a victore 34, 42, 53, 55, 61, 86, 109, 55 f., 61, 72, 188 (Sall. 22)
184 (Sall. 17) quaestus 39, 58, 67, 81, 96, 104, 109,
a viris 46, 92, 148, 174 (Sall. 9) 178 (Sall. 13)
chilonum 34, 48, 62, 68, 91, 99, 108, sciatis 32, 137, 147, 166 f. (Sall. 2)
148, 184 (Sall. 18) vel 68, 78, 91, 108, 148, 172
de eo qui falsum … 32, 148, 166 f. (Sall. 7)
(Sall. 3) velitari 59, 94, 138 ff., 148, 166
despectui habuit 33, 36, 60, 133, 180 (Sall. 3)
(Sall.15) vendidit 71, 180 (Sall. 14)

Anna a. Novokhatko - The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero_ Critical Edition With Introduction, Translation, And Commentary (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts)-Walter de Gruyter (2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Anna a. Novokhatko - The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero_ Critical Edition With Introduction, Translation, And Commentary (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts)-Walter de Gruyter (2009)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anna a. Novokhatko - The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero_ Critical Edition With Introduction, Translation, And Commentary (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts)-Walter de Gruyter (2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anna A.

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Invectiva in M. Tullium Ciceronem. English & Latin.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

To my parents, my constant support

The study is a revised and expanded version of my Ph.D. dissertation,

Freiburg im Breisgau, October 2008 Anna Novokhatko

Chapter 1 What are the invectives against Cicero and

Chapter 2 The history of the text known

Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited

Chapter 4 Text known as Sallust’s invectives with a new

Appendix. List of edited invectives

Index rerum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Index nominum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

Index vocabulorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Cic. In M. Tullium Ciceronem Oratio

Ald secondary references toAldinae in other editions, e.g.:Ald in

Inc omnium incunabulorum consensus

1 Sall. 3. See below p. 22, 167.

2 Cic. 6. See below p. 159.

1.1 Rhetoric as a central part of Roman education

7 See Kennedy 1994, 81 ff.; Corbeill 2007, 70.

11 Quint. 1, 4, 1–5; 1, 8, 12; 10, 1 ff.; 12, 2, 11.

1.1.2 Suasoria and Controversia

19 Cf. Tac. Dial. 35, 4. See also Sussman 1978, 11.

original controversiae were drawn from two types of subject matter , ex

prefaces that elaborate on the practice of declamation and refers to the

25 Cf. Suet. Gram. et Rhet. 25. See also Sussman 1978, 4 f.

1.1.3 The Schools of Rhetoric in Rome

34 Sussman 1978, 10. Cf. Quint. 1, 2, 30–31.

to larger competitive gatherings of adult rhetors declaiming on the same

39 Cf. Sen Contr. 1, 7, 13; 2, 1, 25.

1.1.4 The importance of imitation

Imitation was a basic feature of rhetoric, a fundamental principle of lit-

51 Cf. Isocr. 4 (Panegyr.), 10.

aptitude; indeed the theories developed by these scholars come close to

1.2 Generic features of invective

“Invective” (invectiva, from oratio invectiva, from invehor) means abus-

61 It is important to bear in mind that while mimesis was praised, plagiarism,

Though the late appearance of oratio invectiva as a term is interesting in

traditional patterns of invective. 74 Six invective 

74 RG 2.36.7–19 (Aphthonius; cf. 2.40.14–17).

of one’s political opponent, rather than his political principles; that is

1.3 The invectives of Sallust

It is important to bear in mind that the attribution of texts to specif

78 See especially Dunkle 1967, 171.

Asinius Pollio, for example, writing speeches in defence of Catiline,83 and

The invectives examined here are, in all probability , examples of such

It is worth noting here also that Sallust’

1.4 The historical context of the invectives

1.5 The content of the invectives

1.5.1 The content of the invective against Cicero

97 See Ascon. Pro Mil. 33, 37, 45, 49.

was probably supposed to bear witness to the author ’s rhetorical dexter-

There follows in the second paragraph (2) another 

107 See above p. 13 f.

is depicted as a deceitful poet who grabbed power through arms. The

traditional patterns of invective. 74 Six invective

There follows in the second paragraph (2) another

The main characteristic of the f ifth paragraph is another

Cic. 7 auctore WirzKurfessReynoldsShackletonBailey] iure !cum"17

Sall. 18 debitorum «] dedit– : ledit–

Sall. 17 vexavit E] vixit A2

2.3.1 Hyparchetype (AFK+N)

Four manuscripts belong to hyparchetype . This hyparchetype was

On two occasions hyparchetype contains the correct reading in contrast

Among the manuscripts belonging to group , manuscript K, 42 written

Cic. 2 res sit TG

52 Cic. 5 consule fortunatam] fortunatam consule (–ulere K1)